Morning Star Packing Company, et al v. SK Foods, et al

Filing 191

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/9/14 GRANTING 182 Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories in accordance with this order. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
Stephen Zovickian (SBN 78697)
[e-mail]
Colin C. West (SBN 184095)
[e-mail]
Sujal J. Shah (SBN 215230)
[e-mail]
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, California 94111-4067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.393.2286
Attorneys for Defendant
Ingomar Packing Company

8
9
10
11
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

15
16
17

The Morning Star Packing Company, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,

18
19
20

v.
S.K. Foods, L.P., et. al.,
Defendants.

21

No. 2:09-CV-00208-KJM-EFB
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE
DEFENDANT INGOMAR PACKING
COMPANY, LLC’S MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 1, 3 AND 5,
AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 AND 58
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

22
23
24

September 3, 2014
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 8
Magistrate Judge
Edmund F. Brennan

25

Defendant Ingomar Packing Company’s (“Ingomar”) motion to compel plaintiffs The

26

Morning Star Packing Company, Liberty Packing Company, LLC, California Fruit & Tomato

27

Kitchens, LLC, and the Morning Star Company (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to produce substantive

28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DEFENDANT INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES - CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00208-KJM-EFB
A/76298191.2

1

and complete responses to Ingomar’s Interrogatories 1, 3 and 5, and its Requests for Production

2

4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 came on regularly for hearing before the Hon. Edmund F.

3

Brennan on September 3, 2014. Stephen Zovickian of Bingham McCutchen LLP appeared for

4

defendant Ingomar; Charles Jaeger of Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP appeared for defendants

5

Los Gatos Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf; and James Kachmar of Weintraub Tobin Chediak

6

Coleman Gordin appeared for Plaintiffs.

7
8
9

Having considered the motion and papers on file, and the arguments made by counsel at
the hearing, the Court overrules the Plaintiffs’ objections and orders as follows:
1.

With respect to Interrogatory No. 1, the motion is granted. Plaintiffs are ordered

10

to serve a complete supplemental response providing the information sought by the

11

interrogatory, including an identification of all the sales sought by the interrogatory, on or before

12

September 17, 2014.

13

2.

With respect to Interrogatory No. 3, the motion is granted. Plaintiffs are ordered

14

to serve a complete supplemental response providing the information sought by the interrogatory

15

on or before September 17, 2014.

16
17

3.

With respect to Interrogatory No. 5, the motion is granted as to the interrogatory

revised as follows:

18

Separately for each potential sale of PROCESSED TOMATO

19

PRODUCTS identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, and for

20

each sale of PROCESSED TOMATO PRODUCTS, identified in

21

response to Interrogatory No. 2, state PLAINTIFFS’ expected

22

profit margin on the sale.

23

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve a complete supplemental response providing the information

24

sought by the revised interrogatory on or before September 17, 2014.

25

4.

All documents referred to in the supplemental interrogatory responses hereby

26

ordered as to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, and 5 shall be identified by bates numbers on or before

27

September 17, 2014.

28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER DEFENDANT INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES - CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00208-KJM-EFB
A/76298191.2

1

5.

With respect to Request for Production Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and

2

58, the motion is granted as to the following categories of documents for the time period

3

January 1, 2004 through the last date on which Plaintiffs claim damages:


4
5

Sales reports/histories for relevant customers, i.e., the customers for whom
plaintiffs are asserting damages;

6



Inventory reports;

7



Pre-and post-season pack plans;

8



Pre-and post-season sales plans;

9



Production histories; and

10



Final bids and contract offers to the relevant customers, i.e., the customers for

11

whom plaintiffs are asserting damages.

12

These six categories are collectively referred to as the “Six Categories of Documents.” As to

13

these documents, the Court orders as follows:

14
15

A.

Plaintiffs shall provide defendants, on or before September 17, with a

verified affidavit, signed by a representative with personal knowledge, attesting to the following:

16

1)

17

That a reasonable search has been made with respect to the Six
Categories of Documents.

18

2)

Whether the documents that comprise the Six Categories of

19

Documents have been produced and, if so, the bates numbers for

20

the documents that have been produced in each category.

21

3)

Whether any documents that comprise the Six Categories of

22

Documents have not been produced and, if so, whether the non-

23

produced documents exist.

24

B.

If documents that comprise any of the Six Categories of Documents exist

25

but have not been produced, Plaintiffs shall produce these documents to Defendants on or before

26

September 17, 2014 organized according to the Six Categories of Documents.

27

6.

The deposition of Mr. Rufer is currently noticed to begin on September 29, 2014.

28
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER DEFENDANT INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES - CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00208-KJM-EFB
A/76298191.2

1

In light of the above rulings, the deposition now shall commence on or before October 13, 2014.

2

By September 10, counsel for Plaintiffs shall provide counsel for defendants Ingomar and Los

3

Gatos all available dates for the deposition of Mr. Rufer between September 29 and October 13,

4

including dates between October 6 and October 13. Defendants may then choose when to

5

commence the deposition.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: September 9, 2014.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
[PROPOSED] ORDER DEFENDANT INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES - CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00208-KJM-EFB
A/76298191.2