E. & J. Gallo Winery et al v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc.

Filing 82

ORDER Regarding Pending Discovery Disputes 46 , 47 , 48 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/6/2012. (Martinez, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
E. & J. GALLO WINERY,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TOLEDO ENGINEERING CO., INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________________ )

1:11-cv-00476 LJO GSA
ORDER REGARDING PENDING
DISCOVERY DISPUTES
(Documents 46, 47 & 48)

16
17

On October 5, 2012, the parties to this action filed the following discovery motions: (1)

18

Toledo Engineering Co., Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order; (2) Toledo Engineering Co., Inc.’s

19

Motion to Compel Production & Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents;

20

and (3) E. & J. Gallo Winery’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and

21

Further Responses to Production of Documents. (Docs. 46-48.) A joint statement regarding the

22

parties’ discovery disputes and accompanying exhibits were filed October 19, 2012. (See Docs.

23

57-60.)

24

Meaningful meet and confer sessions were held at the undersigned’s direction in

25

Courtroom 10 on October 26, October 31, and November 7, 2012. An oral record was made

26

regarding the discovery issues resolved as a result of those sessions (see Docs. 62-63, 69) and a

27
28

1

1

Statement Regarding Resolved Discovery Issues was filed on November 9, 2012 (Doc. 71).

2

Thereafter, the parties continued to work diligently toward resolution of their remaining

3

discovery disputes, keeping the Court apprised of their progress. (Docs. 72-73, 76, 80.)

4

On December 5, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation Regarding Unresolved Discovery

5

Issues. (Doc. 81.) A review of the stipulation reveals that all discovery disputes have been

6

resolved and it appears that no further action by this Court is required at this time. More

7

specifically, the parties advised as follows:

8
9
10

(1) Toledo’s Motion for Protective Order: The parties report that depositions have
been scheduled for December 13 and 14, 2012, of Toledo’s Rule 30(b)(6) designees and
that the issue has been resolved;

11

(2) Toledo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses: The parties report that

12

all issues have been resolved by way of Gallo’s supplemental production received

13

November 16, 2012.

14

(Doc. 81 at 2.)

15

In the event of a future dispute specifically related to the issues raised by the parties in

16

the original motions, and thought to be resolved by the parties’ commendable meet and confer

17

efforts, this Court shall issue a written decision. Otherwise, the motions filed by the parties on

18

October 5, 2012, are HEREBY deemed moot and are denied without prejudice.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

December 6, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2