DeMartini, et al. v. DeMartini, et al.

Filing 144

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/6/2016 ORDERING that the hearing date of 12/14/2016 is VACATED. Plaintiffs' 122 motion to compel production of documents is GRANTED. No later than 12/12/2016, defendants shall provid e the electronic copies of computer files made by plaintiffs' forensic computer examiner on November 29-30, 2016. No later than 12/12/2016, defendants shall make available for inspection and copying the two boxes of documents produced on 12/2 /2016 but which defendants did not permit the copy service to copy (see ECF No. 136 , 16), and all documents as described in the declaration of Yasmin Quilat at paragraph 3 (ECF No. 137 at 2:22-3:9). No later than 12/12/2016, defendants may file an opposition to plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the motion. No later than 12/16/2016, plaintiffs may file a reply. The matter of expenses shall thereafter stand submitted. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY DEMARTINI, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2722 JAM CKD PS

v.

ORDER

MICHAEL DEMARTINI, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Calendared for hearing on December 14, 2016 is plaintiffs’ motion to compel production

17
18

of documents. Because oral argument is not of material assistance, this matter is submitted on

19

the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review of the parties’ separate statements1 and

20

declarations submitted in connection with the motion, and good cause appearing therefor, THE

21

COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Defendants have in their initial disclosures described electronically stored information

22
23

(“ESI”). Although plaintiffs’ forensic computer examiner has copied some of this information,

24

defendants have refused to allow the discs of copied ESI to be provided to plaintiffs. Defendants’

25

objections to producing this discovery are meritless.

26
27
28

1

As noted in the court’s December 6, 2016 order, in the future, the court will not consider
separate submissions with respect to discovery motions. The court expects the parties to comply
with both the spirit and letter of the law set forth in Local Rule 251.
1

1

In addition, defendants have refused to allow plaintiffs’ copy service to copy paper

2

documents which defendants again have represented are documents responsive to plaintiffs’

3

discovery requests. Defendants have produced no privilege log and have not properly moved for

4

entry of a protective order. Plaintiffs’ motion will therefore be granted.

5

Plaintiffs seek $4,625 as reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the motion.

6

Because defendants’ separate statement has not addressed this issue, defendants will be afforded

7

an opportunity to oppose this request.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. The hearing date of December 14, 2016 is vacated.

10

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents (ECF No. 122) is granted.

11

3. No later than December 12, 2016, defendants shall provide the electronic copies of

12

computer files made by plaintiffs’ forensic computer examiner on November 29-30, 2016. No

13

later than December 12, 2016, defendants shall make available for inspection and copying the two

14

boxes of documents produced on December 2, 2016 but which defendants did not permit the copy

15

service to copy (see ECF No. 136, ¶ 16), and all documents as described in the declaration of

16

Yasmin Quilat at paragraph 3 (ECF No. 137 at 2:22-3:9).

17

4. No later than December 12, 2016, defendants may file an opposition to plaintiffs’

18

request for attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the motion. No later than December 16,

19

2016, plaintiffs may file a reply. The matter of expenses shall thereafter stand submitted.

20

Dated: December 6, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25

4 demartini2722.mtc

26
27
28
2