Jackson v. Calone, et al.

Filing 113

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/1/2017 ORDERING 92 , 93 Defendants' Motions for Protective Order are DENIED; Defendant's 102 Motion for terminating and monetary sanctions is DENIED; Plaintiff's 107 requ est that the court take judicial notice of declarations made by plaintiff in a probate matter is Stanislaus County Superior Court is DENIED; within 60 days of this order parties shall stipulate to an appropriate protective order; after which defendants shall respond to plaintiff's discovery requests; Parties are advised to meet and confer regarding any continuing discovery disputes. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DOROTHY RODDEN JACKSON,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:16-cv-00891-TLN-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

RICHARD CALONE; CALONE &
HARREL LAW GROUP, LLP; CALONE
& BEATTIE, LLP; and CALONE LAW
GROUP, LLP,
Defendants.

18
19

Presently pending before the court are defendants’ two motions for protective order,

20

regarding interrogatories and requests for production (ECF Nos. 92, 93), and defendants’ motion

21

for terminating and monetary sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (ECF

22

No. 102.) The parties timely filed their joint statements regarding the motions for protective

23

order on November 20, 2017, (ECF Nos. 104, 105), and plaintiff filed an opposition to

24

defendants’ motion for terminating and monetary sanctions on November 22, 2017. (ECF No.

25

107.) These motions came on regularly for hearing on November 30, 2017, at 10:00 am. James

26

R. Kirby, II, appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and Mark E. Ellis and Theresa M. LaVoie appeared

27

on behalf of defendants.

28
1

1

After considering the parties’ joint statements, briefing, supporting documentation, and

2

oral arguments, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY

3

ORDERED that:

4

1. Defendants’ motions for protective order (ECF Nos. 92, 93) are DENIED.

5

2. Defendant’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions (ECF No. 102) is

6
7

DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s request that the court take judicial notice of declarations made by plaintiff

8

in a probate matter in Stanislaus County Superior Court (ECF No. 107 at 11) is

9

DENIED.

10
11

4. Within 60 days of this order:
a. Parties shall stipulate to an appropriate protective order to address defendants’

12

privacy concerns raised in defendants’ motions for protective order, after

13

which, defendants SHALL RESPOND to plaintiff’s discovery requests

14

regarding defendants’ net worth, and plaintiff shall respond to any outstanding

15

discovery requests.

16

b. Plaintiff SHALL BE DEPOSED. Parties shall meet and confer, with input

17

from plaintiff’s medical providers, and determine how best to accommodate

18

plaintiff’s medical needs and defendants’ right to discovery.

19

5. Parties are advised to meet and confer regarding any continuing discovery disputes. If

20

issues persist, parties are encouraged to utilize the undersigned’s informal discovery

21

procedures, which can be found on the website for the Eastern District of California:

22

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5046/.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2017

25
26
14/16-891.jackson.mtc.mts

27
28
2