Mitchell v. Felker et al

Filing 134

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/25/12 ordering defendants shall respond to plaintiff's request for production of documents by producing all readily available documents now, and the remainder on a rolling basis in accord ance with the schedule proposed by defendants in the parties joint statement. The parties shall meet and confer to define the scope of electronic discovery with their respective information technology specialists by close of business on 10/31/12. D efendant Cates's objections to plaintiff's interrogatories are overruled. Defendant Cate shall substantively respond to interrogatories 1-11 by 10/30/12. Defendant Cate shall substantively respond to interrogatories 12-17 by 11/06/12. The clerk of the court shall terminate docket entries 125 and 127 . (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBERT MITCHELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12

vs.

13

No. 2:08-cv-1196 JAM EFB P

T. FELKER, et al.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

ORDER

On October 24, 2012, the court heard defendants’ motion for a protective order and

17

plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Dckt. Nos. 125, 127. Attorneys Christopher Becker and Erin

18

Sullivan appeared at the hearing on behalf of defendants; attorneys Manu Pradhan and Rebekah

19

Evenson appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. As stated on the record and for the reasons stated on

20

the record, both requests were granted in part, as follows:

21

1. Defendants shall respond to plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents by

22

producing all readily available documents now, and the remainder on a rolling basis, in

23

accordance with the schedule proposed by defendants in the parties’ joint statement. See Dckt.

24

No. 132 at 13-14.

25
26

2. The parties shall meet and confer to define the scope of electronic discovery, with
their respective information technology specialists, by close of business on October 31, 2012.
1

1

3. Defendant Cate’s objections to plaintiffs’ interrogatories are overruled. Defendant

2

Cate shall substantively respond to interrogatories 1-11 by October 30, 2012. Defendant Cate

3

shall substantively respond to interrogatories 12-17 by November 6, 2012.

4

4. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate docket entries 125 and 127.

5

So Ordered.

6

DATED: October 25, 2012.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2