Zolensky II v. American Medflight, Inc.

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/17/17 ORDERING that Defendant's 28 motion to compel is GRANTED (see order for details). The court DECLINES to address the parties' additional issue relating to whether defendant has waived the attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection with regard to certain documents it is withholding on those bases because that issue is not ripe at this juncture. The court DECLINES to modify the pretrial schedule at this time.(Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT ZOLENSKY II,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0788-KJM-KJN

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.,
Defendant.

16
17

On April 13, 2017, this case was before the undersigned to address defendant American

18

Medflight, Inc.’s (“defendant”) motion to compel plaintiff Robert Zolensky II (“plaintiff”) to

19

produce documents. (ECF No. 28.) Attorneys Lisa Borodkin and Damion Robinson appeared

20

telephonically on behalf of plaintiff. Attorney Anthony Hall appeared on behalf of defendant.

21

Based on defendant’s motion, defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities

22

regarding this discovery dispute, no opposition having been filed, other relevant filings, and oral

23

arguments, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1. Defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.

25

2. Plaintiff shall promptly produce any phone records responsive to defendant’s Request

26

for Production number 23 it obtains through the subpoena it served on Verizon

27
28
1

Communications, Inc. on March 30, 2017.1

1
2

3. Plaintiff’s counsel shall contact the medical records custodian at the particular Kaiser

3

Permanente facility or facilities that plaintiff attended for his medical care and confirm

4

with that custodian both that the subpoena plaintiff served on Kaiser Permanente

5

International is the correct channel for obtaining plaintiff’s medical records responsive

6

to defendant’s requests for production brought into issue by defendant’s present

7

motion, and whether there are any other methods for obtaining such records on a

8

timeline shorter than that provided by plaintiff’s subpoena. Plaintiff’s counsel shall

9

contact defendant’s counsel by no later than April 17, 2017, to provide him with the

10

information plaintiff obtained as a result of this investigation. After plaintiff obtains

11

any of the medical records responsive to defendant’s requests for production currently

12

at issue, plaintiff shall promptly produce such documents to defendant.

13

4. The court declines to address the parties’ additional issue relating to whether

14

defendant has waived the attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection with

15

regard to certain documents it is withholding on those bases because that issue is not

16

ripe at this juncture.2 The court will address the issue, if necessary, if the parties

17

properly present it after defendant has filed an answer to plaintiff’s recently-filed first

18

amended complaint.

19

5. The court declines to modify the pretrial schedule at this time. As discussed during

20

the hearing, the parties are encouraged to meet and confer regarding how much time

21

they believe they will need to complete any further discovery, and resolve their

22

remaining discovery disputes. As part of that meet and confer effort, the parties

23

should endeavor to reach a stipulation to modify the current pretrial scheduling order,

24
25
26
27
28

1

This means that plaintiff should produce any such documents to defendant as soon as he
receives them from Verizon Communications, Inc., even if he receives such documents on a
rolling basis.
2

Similarly, for the reasons provided in the court’s April 7, 2017 minute order, the court declines
to address the parties’ additional discovery issues raised in plaintiff’s improperly noticed motion
to compel filed on April 6, 2017, as of this time.
2

and then present that stipulation to the court.3

1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 17, 2017

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

As discussed during the hearing, the parties will need to notice such a stipulation before the
presiding district judge if the modified dates they propose will impact the balance of the schedule
of this action. (See ECF No. 23 at 9.)
3