Bailey et al v. Gatan, Inc. et al

Filing 108

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/29/16 ORDERING plaintiffs/relators Brent Bailey and Emily Wade shall, no later than 8/8/16, each submit for a two hour deposition re possible violation of the protective order; Plaintiffs 9; motion to compel is set 8/17/16. No later than 8/3/16, plaintiffs' counsel shall provide to defendants' counsel plaintiffs' portion of the joint statement. No later than 8/8/16, defendants' counsel shall provide to plaintiff s' counsel defendants' portion of the joint statement; No later than 8/2/16, plaintiff shall either withdraw the objections based on privilege to defendants' request for production no. 134 or shall provide a privilege log for any withheld documents. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRENT BAILEY, et al.,

12

No. 2:12-cv-0106 MCE CKD

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

GATAN, INC.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

This matter came before the undersigned for an informal discovery conference on July 28,

18

2016. Daniel Bartley appeared telephonically for plaintiffs. Matthew Kahn and Deena Klaber

19

appeared telephonically for defendants. Upon review of the letter briefs and the parties’

20

submissions after the hearing, THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

21

1. Plaintiffs/relators Brent Bailey and Emily Wade shall, no later than August 8, 2016,

22

each submit for a two hour deposition regarding possible violation of the protective order

23

previously entered in this case. The deposition may be conducted telephonically.

24

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is set for hearing on August 17, 2016. No later than

25

August 3, 2016, plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide to defendants’ counsel plaintiffs’ portion of the

26

joint statement. No later than August 8, 2016, defendants’ counsel shall provide to plaintiffs’

27

counsel defendants’ portion of the joint statement. Each side shall be limited to 12 pages of

28

argument. The discovery in dispute need not be fully replicated in the argument portion of the
1

1

joint statement but reference to the specific numbers of the discovery in dispute (e.g.

2

Interrogatory no. 34, Request for admissions no. 20 or Request for production of documents no.

3

12) must be made in the argument. Copies of the propounded discovery and response or amended

4

responses thereto must be attached to the joint statement as exhibits. Declarations may also be

5

attached as exhibits to the joint statement.

6

3. No later than August 2, 2016, plaintiff shall either withdraw the objections based on

7

privilege to defendants’ request for production no. 134 or shall provide a privilege log for any

8

withheld documents.
4. Currently set for hearing is defendants’ motion for sanctions and to compel privilege

9
10

log. ECF No. 105. The issue of the privilege log has been resolved as set forth above. In light of

11

the timing of the further depositions of plaintiffs, the court will not set a briefing schedule for

12

exchange of the respective parties’ portions of the brief but expects the parties to engage in

13

professional conduct with respect to drafting of the joint statement. The parties are limited to 9

14

pages each of argument.

15

5. The issue raised by plaintiff regarding potential disqualification of defense counsel is

16

not properly before the undersigned and must be raised, if at all, before the District Judge.

17

Dated: July 29, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20

4

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2