Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Manteca Lifestyle Center, LLC

Filing 81

ORDER denying 55 Motion for Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/23/12. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a Virginia
limited partnership,

11
Plaintiff,

No. 2:10-cv-0389-WBS-KJN

12
vs.
13
14

MANTECA LIFESTYLE CENTER, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,

15

Defendant.

ORDER

16
17

On August 4, 2011, defendant and counter-claimant Manteca Lifestyle Center,

18

LLC (“defendant” or “Manteca”) filed a Notice of Motion and Motion For Protective Order, Or,

19

In The Alternative, To Quash The Subpoenas (“Motion for Protective Order”).1 (Mot for Prot.

20

Order, Dkt. No. 55.) In its entirety, the filing consisted of one three-page Notice document

21

setting the matter for hearing for August 25, 2011. (Id.) However, when the parties failed to file

22

a joint statement regarding the dispute at least seven days before that hearing date, the hearing

23

was dropped from the calendar. (Dkt. No. 59.) A review of the court’s electronic docket

24

confirms that no joint statement regarding defendant’s Motion for Protective Order was ever

25

filed.

26
1

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

The undersigned presided over several telephonic conferences between defendant

2

and plaintiff and counter-defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. (“plaintiff” or “Best Buy”), addressing

3

the discovery dispute prompting defendant’s motion as well as other discovery issues. (E.g., Dkt.

4

Nos. 60, 61.) Following such a conference, the undersigned took defendant’s Motion for

5

Protective Order under submission. (Dkt. No. 61 at 2.) Thereafter, the undersigned presided

6

over an additional telephonic conference between the parties, which addressed issues pertaining

7

to defendant’s Motion for Protective Order as well as other discovery issues. (Dkt. No. 65.)

8

Thereafter, the parties were able to stipulate to certain protective orders and certain third-party

9

discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 66, 69, 71.) The undersigned approved the parties’ stipulations via signed

10

orders. (Dkt. Nos. 68, 70, 72.)

11

Defendant has not formally withdrawn its Motion for Protective Order; however,

12

the parties’ discovery deadline has passed. (See Dkt. Nos. 56 (deadline of Oct. 31, 2011 for “all

13

discovery”)), 72 at 4-5 (deadline for certain third party discovery extended to various dates in

14

November and December 2011) .) Accordingly, because the discovery period is complete, and

15

for purposes of clarity, the undersigned denies defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No.

16

55).

17

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion For Protective Order, Or, In The

19
20
21

Alternative, To Quash The Subpoenas (Dkt. No. 55) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 23, 2012

22
23
24

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
2