Lopez v. Schwarzenneger

Filing 163

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/30/12 ORDERING that a protective order is to be submitted by the parties forthwith. Within two weeks or by 11/8/12, documents responsive to plaintiff's requests for production (RFP) no s. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, will be produced to plaintiff with the caveat that, as to RFP no. 7 in accordance with this order. RFP no. 5 has been withdrawn. With respect to RFP no. 6 directed to defendant Burt, within ten days he must serve upon plaintiff a statement under oath that he has conducted a search, listing each of the places where his search was conducted. As to RFP no. 6 directed to defendant Cronjeager and defendant Fischer, and as to RFP no. 8 propounded upon defendant Garcia, counsel f or both parties are directed to discuss and formulate a plan and to return to court with the proposed plan. As to RFP no. 8 directed to defendant Fischer, as well as RFP no. 7 served upon defendant Florez and defendant Garcia, those requests for production are denied. Counsel are to submit a stipulation for extending the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions forthwith. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ANDREW RICK LOPEZ,

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-09-1760 MCE GGH P

vs.

13

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

The discovery dispute in this matter came on for hearing on October 25, 2012,

17

before the undersigned. Robert Navarro appeared for plaintiff and Matthew Ross Wilson

18

represented the defendants. Following the hearing, this court makes the following ORDERS:

19

1. A protective order is to be submitted by the parties forthwith;

20

2. Within two weeks, or by November 8, 2012, subject to the protective order to

21

be reviewed, approved and issued by the court, documents responsive to plaintiff’s requests for

22

production (RFP) nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, as modified and/or agreed to by the parties and articulated by

23

the court at the hearing will be produced to plaintiff with the caveat that, as to RFP no. 7, it is

24

only that request directed to defendants Berna, Buechler and Gomez which requires production in

25

response (see below);

26

3. RFP no. 5 has been withdrawn;
1

1

4. With respect to RFP no. 6 directed to defendant Burt, within ten days, if this

2

defendant cannot produce plaintiff’s rebuttal to the CDC 128B-2 identified, he must serve upon

3

plaintiff a statement under oath that he has conducted a search reasonably calculated to reveal the

4

responsive document but has been unable to locate it, listing each of the places where his search

5

was conducted.

6

5. As to RFP no. 6 directed to defendant Cronjeager and defendant Fischer,

7

respectively, and as to RFP no. 8 propounded upon defendant Garcia, following production

8

subject to the protective order in response, counsel for both parties are directed to discuss and

9

formulate a plan and to return to court with the proposed plan before proceeding to act upon any

10

confidential information/statements revealed;

11
12

6. As to RFP no. 8 directed to defendant Fischer, as well as RFP no. 7 served
upon defendant Florez and defendant Garcia, those requests for production are denied; and

13

7. Counsel are to submit a stipulation for extending the deadline for the filing of

14

dispositive motions forthwith.

15

DATED: October 30, 2012

16
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18

GGH:009
lope1760.ord2

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2