Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education

Filing 248

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/12/16 ORDERING that the Court approves the Special Master's request to meet with plaintiff's counsel and her e-Discovery consultant prior to the upcoming joint meeting of the parties with the Special Master. Defendant's objection is noted and overruled. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED
PARENTS ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:11-cv-3471 KJM AC

ORDER
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

At the August 9, 2016 discovery conference, the court addressed inter alia plaintiffs’

19

request to meet privately with the Special Master to discuss technical problems that plaintiffs’

20

counsel has experienced in attempting to review discovery. See ECF No. 235. Defendants

21

objected to the ex parte nature of the proposed meeting, and plaintiffs’ counsel spontaneously

22

expressed willingness to include defense counsel. The request for a private meeting thus

23

appeared moot, and no ruling on defendants’ objection was necessary.

24

The Special Master has now notified the court that in his professional judgment, a brief

25

private meeting with plaintiffs’ counsel and her e-Discovery consultant will best enable him to

26

understand the technical difficulties plaintiffs say they are experiencing because of the format of

27

the deliverables they are receiving. The proposed private meeting will be for the limited purpose

28

of helping the Special Master to understand these problems, prior to a joint session to discuss
1

1

issues related to the format of defendants’ e-Discovery production and plaintiffs’ review of that

2

discovery. The private meeting will not discuss the specifics of actual searches, nor involve any

3

suggestions for future searches.

4

Neither the Order appointing the Special Master, ECF No. 116, nor the subsequent Order

5

revising the scope of his duties, ECF No. 170, expressly limit the circumstances in which the

6

Special Master may meet with one party outside the presence of the other. It is the expectation of

7

the undersigned, however, that any such meetings will be extremely rare, and will take place only

8

with notice to the other party and with prior court approval.

9

The court finds that in the present circumstances, the proposed private meeting will enable

10

the Special Master to most effectively assist the parties in resolving their e-Discovery problems.

11

Given the limited purpose and scope of the meeting, there will be no prejudice to defendants. In

12

sum, the court finds good cause to approve the Special Master’s request to meet with plaintiff’s

13

counsel and her e-Discovery consultant prior to the upcoming joint meeting of the parties with the

14

Special Master. Defendant’s objection is noted and overruled.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: September 12, 2016

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2