Clymore, et al v. Federal Railroad Administration et al
Filing
34
ORDER following telephonic discovery dispute. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/25/2015. (Rooney, M)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
RICHARD CLYMORE, an individual;
DEBRA HARBIN-CLYMORE, an
individual,
10
11
12
13
14
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-101-AWI-SMS
ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDERAL RAILROAD
ADMINISTRATION, Et Al.,
Defendants.
15
16
On June 24, 2015, at 11:00am, the Court held a telephonic informal discovery dispute
17
conference in chambers pursuant to a June 22, 2015 minute order. Assistant United States
18
Attorney Jeffrey Lodge appeared in person. No appearance was made by Plaintiffs’ counsel. The
19
Court received phone call from a Camilla from Panish Shea & Boyle at 12:01pm, advising that
20
Attorney Rudorfer was had not appeared that morning due to a deposition; however, the Court was
21
not notified of the conflict before this phone call.
22
After waiting for Mr. Rudorfer’s telephonic appearance until 11:13am, the Court discussed
23
the dispute with Mr. Lodge. This communication was deemed by the Court not to be ex parte as
24
Mr. Rudorfer had ample notice of the conference. Pursuant to the discovery dispute conference,
25
the Court hereby ORDERS:
26
(1) Regarding Defendant’s Request #25 to scan data/other data from Plaintiffs’ vehicle –
27
Plaintiffs, and certainly Plaintiffs’ expert, knew better than to allow the subject motor vehicle to be
28
sold, lost, or destroyed after Plaintiffs’ expert’s inspection. On or before July 2, 2015, Plaintiffs’
1
counsel shall produce any and all data collected by Plaintiffs’ expert, including but not limited to
2
all scan data and its progeny, as well as any and all measurements, surveys, photographs, testing
3
and/or samples taken from said vehicle to be used or potentially used by Plaintiffs’ expert in
4
formulating his/her opinions/conclusions. Should Plaintiffs’ counsel fail to so produce and
5
Defendant’s counsel is forced to a noticed motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel are advised that payment of
6
Defendant’s attorney fees and costs may well be ordered, and/or other sanctions imposed as
7
advised in FRCP 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).
8
(2) Regarding Plaintiffs’ Amendment of Rule 26 Witness Disclosures – It appears as
9
though eleven couples who were not accident witnesses, but rather friends of Plaintiffs’ family, are
10
among the amended witness list. On or before July 2, 2015, per Rule 26(a)(i), Plaintiffs shall
11
narrow their witness list and/or supplement their disclosure to include the subject(s) of
12
discoverable information for each of the new witnesses.
13
(3) Regarding the depositions of Krystle Clymore and Kelly Fowler – On or before July 2,
14
2015, counsel shall agree upon dates certain for the depositions of Krystle Clymore and Kelly
15
Fowler. Should that deadline not be met, the Court will set the depositions in the federal
16
courthouse and impose monetary sanctions on the offending party.
17
(4) Regarding Mrs. Hagood’s Deposition – On or before July 2, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel
18
shall notify Defendant’s counsel of the scope and legitimate discoverable testimony sought from
19
this witness, inasmuch as the Court anticipates telephonic conferences with the Court during said
20
deposition regarding, among other objections, the declaration of marital communication privilege.
21
If the scope and duration cannot be amicably worked out among counsel, the Court will order the
22
deposition to be taken at the federal courthouse, and the Court will attend said deposition.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
DATED: 6/25/2015
/s/ SANDRA M. SNYDER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?