McFarland v. Almond Board of California et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/3/13 ORDERING the Defendant's motion for protective order 40 is granted in part. The privacy interests of non-party Jenny Konschak will be appropriately accommodated by an in camera review of her personnel file to ensure that only matters relevant to the claims are disclosed. No later than 10/9/13, defendant Almond Board shall submit to the chambers of the undersigned a bate-stamped copy of the personnel file of Jenny Konschak; In light of the allegations of the complaint and after review of the evidentiary materials submitted in support and opposition to the pending motion, the court concludes that defendant's proposed protective order is not warranted and would unduly circumscribe plaintiff's legitimate scope of discovery. The motion for protective order is accordingly denied as to the requested limitations on areas of inquiry. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SUSI McFARLAND,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-2778 JAM CKD

v.

ORDER

ALMOND BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, et
al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

The motion for protective order brought by defendant Almond Board of California

19

(“Almond Board”) came on regularly for hearing October 2, 2013. Galen Shimoda appeared for

20

plaintiff. Ian Wieland appeared for defendant Almond Board. Mike Baytosh appeared for

21

defendant Birmingham. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing

22

the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND

23

ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Defendant’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 40) is granted in part. The privacy

24
25

interests of non-party Jenny Konschak will be appropriately accommodated by an in camera

26

review of her personnel file to ensure that only matters relevant to the claims are disclosed. No

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

later than October 9, 2013, defendant Almond Board shall submit to the chambers of the

2

undersigned a bate-stamped copy of the personnel file of Jenny Konschak.1

3

2. In light of the allegations of the complaint and after review of the evidentiary materials

4

submitted in support and opposition to the pending motion, the court concludes that defendant’s

5

proposed protective order is not warranted and would unduly circumscribe plaintiff’s legitimate

6

scope of discovery. The motion for protective order is accordingly denied as to the requested

7

limitations on areas of inquiry.

8

Dated: October 3, 2013

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12

4 mcfarland.oah

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

If the parties have further disputes about production of personnel files of non-parties to the
action, the parties may submit a joint letter brief, not to exceed four pages, along with a batestamped copy of the personnel files at issue for in camera review. A motion need not be formally
noticed and the matter will be submitted upon the court’s receipt of the bate-stamped personnel
files.
2