Newark Group, Inc. v. Dopaco, Inc.

Filing 154

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/2/11 ORDERING that Defendants' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS or alternatively, to limit Evidence and COMPEL DISCOVERY 135 is DENIED as to Sanctions, DENIED as to limiting Evidence, and DENIED as to De fendant's Request for Relief Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; Defendant's Request for Relief No. 3 is GRANTED in part. Defendant's MOTION regarding sequence of expert depositions 148 is GRANTED as to Defendant's Request t hat Peter Krasnoff's deposition be taken first, subject to the condition that the Krasnoff deposition be completed no later than Friday, 5/20/11 and also subject to the condition that Plaintiff shall produce documents related thereto at least fi ve (5) days prior to the deposition, and shall produce them more than five days prior to the deposition oif the documents in question are voluminous. Plaintiff's Request for fee-shifting with regard to Defendant's motion for sanctions or, alternatively, to limit evidence and compel discovery is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5); defendant shall reimburse Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $5,000.00, with that payment being made within two weeks after 4/29/11.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THE NEWARK GROUP, INC., 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 No. CIV S-08-2623 GEB DAD DOPACO, INC., 14 15 16 Defendant. ORDER / This case came before the court on April 22, 2011, for hearing on defendant’s 17 motion for sanctions or, alternatively, to limit evidence and compel discovery (Doc. No. 135) and 18 defendant’s motion regarding sequence of expert depositions (Doc. No. 148). H. Christian 19 L’Orange, Esq. and Michael P. Pulliam, Esq. appeared for defendant and moving party Dopaco, 20 Inc. Marc W. Poe, Esq. appeared for plaintiff The Newark Group, Inc. After hearing extensive 21 argument, the undersigned determined that additional time was needed for consideration of 22 several orders issued by the assigned district judge. Accordingly, the matter was continued to 23 April 29, 2011, for further hearing. All counsel who appeared at the April 22, 2011 hearing 24 appeared telephonically at the April 29, 2011 hearing. 25 26 After hearing additional argument, and having carefully considered the orders filed by the Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on September 13, 2010 (Doc. No. 117), November 1 1 24, 2010 (Doc. No. 130), and February 23, 2011 (Doc. No. 134), as well as the transcript of the 2 hearing held by Judge Burrell on November 22, 2010 (Doc. No. 132), the undersigned 3 determined that defendant’s motions are in large part meritless. 4 For the reasons set forth more fully on the record, IT IS ORDERED that: 5 1. Defendant’s motion for sanctions or, alternatively, to limit evidence and 6 compel discovery (Doc. No. 135) is denied as to sanctions, denied as to limiting evidence, and 7 denied as to defendant’s requests for relief Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; defendant’s 8 request for relief No. 3 is granted in part, as set forth below. 9 2. In regard to defendant’s request for relief No. 3, plaintiff shall produce, on or 10 before May 20, 2011, the documents requested in defendant’s deposition notice for Joseph 11 Michaud, to the extent that the requested documents fall within the limited scope of Judge 12 Burrell’s order reopening discovery, as interpreted by the undersigned on the record; in addition, 13 the deposition of Joseph Michaud is re-opened solely for the purpose of taking testimony 14 reasonably related to the additional documents produced by plaintiff pursuant to this paragraph; 15 the re-opened deposition shall not exceed three hours in length and shall not impose significant 16 costs on plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel; all parties are urged to limit costs, and if court 17 assistance is needed to resolve issues related to costs, the parties may call Pete Buzo, courtroom 18 deputy to the undersigned, at (916) 930-4128 to arrange a telephonic conference. 19 3. Defendant’s motion regarding sequence of expert depositions (Doc. No. 148) 20 is granted as to defendant’s request that Peter Krasnoff’s deposition be taken first, subject to the 21 condition that the Krasnoff deposition be completed no later than Friday, May 20, 2011, and also 22 subject to the condition that plaintiff shall produce documents related thereto at least five (5) 23 days prior to the deposition, and shall produce them more than five days prior to the deposition if 24 the documents in question are voluminous. 25 26 4. Plaintiff’s request for fee-shifting with regard to defendant’s motion for sanctions or, alternatively, to limit evidence and compel discovery is granted pursuant to Federal 2 1 Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5); defendant shall reimburse plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of 2 $5,000.00, with that payment being made within two weeks after April 29, 2011. 3 DATED: May 2, 2011. 4 5 6 7 DAD:kw Ddad1/orders.civil/newark2623.oah.042911 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?