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Defendant has not formally withdrawn its Motion for Protective Order; however,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