Brandy Brewer v. Leprino Foods Company, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee on 8/3/2017 for Plaintiff to respond to 25 Ex Parte Application by 8/18/2017. Telephonic Discovery Dispute Hearing set for 9/6/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 401 before Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Brandy Brewer,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Leprino Foods Company, Inc.,

13
14

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-1:16-1091-SMM

ORDER

15

Pending before the Court is Defendant Leprino Foods Company, Inc.’s Ex Parte

16

Application to Re-Open Discovery for Limited Purposes, to Compel Discovery, and for

17

Sanctions. (Doc. 25.) In support of re-opening discovery, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has

18

produced dozens of documents reflecting text message communications Plaintiff has had

19

with Defendant’s employees about this lawsuit, despite representing in her original discovery

20

responses that she was not in possession of any such communications. (Id.) Defendant further

21

contends that Plaintiff has withheld dozens of text message communications entirely,

22

asserting privilege and relevance objections. (Id.)

23

Additionally, Defendant alleges that since the close of discovery, Plaintiff has

24

produced many other responsive documents that it contends should have been produced

25

during the fact discovery period. (Id.) Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has produced a copy

26

of her handwritten journal that she kept regarding her daily work activities while she was

27

employed by Defendant. (Id.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff produced the journal after

28

expiration of the discovery deadline despite Plaintiff testifying at her deposition in February

1

2017 that she no longer had the journal in her possession. (Id.) Finally, Defendant contends

2

that Plaintiff also produced undated social media postings and undated photographs of

3

Defendant’s confidential and proprietary processing equipment. (Id.)

4

Defendant requests that the Court reopen discovery and Order Plaintiff to: (1) produce

5

a complete copy of all communications Plaintiff has had with Defendant’s current and former

6

employees in a reasonably usable form; (2) submit to discovery concerning Plaintiff’s efforts

7

to produce and preserve evidence during the course of this litigation, including her efforts

8

to preserve electronic communications with Defendant’s current and former employees; and

9

(3) submit to an additional day of deposition, so that Defendant may question Plaintiff about

10

the belatedly produced documents and her efforts to timely produce and preserve relevant

11

evidence. Finally, Defendant seeks discovery sanctions with regard to any additional fact

12

discovery that may be Ordered by the Court.

13

Pursuant to L.R. 144 and 230, Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant’s Ex Parte

14

Application to Re-Open Discovery for Limited Purposes, to Compel Discovery, and for

15

Sanctions. (Doc. 25.)

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant’s Ex Parte

18

Application to Re-Open Discovery for Limited Purposes, to Compel Discovery, and for

19

Sanctions by Friday, August 18, 2017. There will be no reply.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a telephonic discovery dispute hearing for

21

Wednesday, September 6, 2017, at 2:00 in Courtroom 401, 401 West Washington Street,

22

Phoenix, AZ before Senior Judge Stephen M. McNamee. The parties are directed to

23

conference on one single, clear telephone line prior to calling Judge McNamee’s chambers

24

at 602-322-7555 five (5) minutes before the start of the proceeding.

25

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2017.

26
27
28

-2-