Sparta Consulting, Inc. v. Copart, Inc.

Filing 113

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/28/2016 ORDERING that no later than 5/2/2016, defendant shall produce a privilege log for the documents withheld as described in the joint statement at ECF No. 103 at p. 15 (Joint Statement at 14:1-2). The motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents nos. 75-78 is DENIED. The hearing on plaintiff's 108 motion for protective order is VACATED. Prior to the filing of any further motion to compel or other discovery motion, the parties shall engage in the informal procedures for the resolution of discovery disputes set forth on the undersigneds court website. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COPART, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0046 KJM CKD

v.

ORDER

SPARTA CONSULTING, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 78) came on regularly for hearing April 27, 2016.

17
18

Jason Takenouchi appeared for plaintiff. Ryan Erickson appeared for defendant. Upon review of

19

the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause

20

appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

21

1. No later than May 2, 2016, defendant shall produce a privilege log for the documents

22

withheld as described in the joint statement at ECF No. 103 at p. 15 (Joint Statement at 14:1-2).
2. On the present record, the court finds that defendant does not have possession, custody,

23
24

or control of the KPIT e-mail server located in India that contains the e-mails of the four

25

custodians in dispute on this motion. The motion to compel further responses to request for

26

production of documents nos. 75-78 is therefore denied.

27

/////

28

/////
1

3. Presently calendared for hearing on May 18, 2016 is plaintiff’s motion for protective

1
2

order. The motion is untimely under the current scheduling order.1 ECF. No. 69. The hearing on

3

plaintiff’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 108) is vacated.

4

4. Prior to the filing of any further motion to compel or other discovery motion, the

5

parties shall engage in the informal procedures for the resolution of discovery disputes set forth

6

on the undersigned’s court website.

7

Dated: April 28, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11

4 copart0046.oah

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court recognizes that the parties have submitted a stipulation and proposed order to modify
the current scheduling order. ECF No. 109. However, that stipulation is still under review by the
District Court and the discovery cut-off dates have not yet been extended. Moreover, even under
the dates proposed by the parties, the motion for protective order would be untimely.
2