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)

Download PDF
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-

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?