Jackson v. Calone, et al.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DOROTHY RODDEN JACKSON,
RICHARD CALONE; CALONE &
HARREL LAW GROUP, LLP; CALONE
& BEATTIE, LLP; and CALONE LAW
Presently pending before the court are defendants’ two motions for protective order,
regarding interrogatories and requests for production (ECF Nos. 92, 93), and defendants’ motion
for terminating and monetary sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (ECF
No. 102.) The parties timely filed their joint statements regarding the motions for protective
order on November 20, 2017, (ECF Nos. 104, 105), and plaintiff filed an opposition to
defendants’ motion for terminating and monetary sanctions on November 22, 2017. (ECF No.
107.) These motions came on regularly for hearing on November 30, 2017, at 10:00 am. James
R. Kirby, II, appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and Mark E. Ellis and Theresa M. LaVoie appeared
on behalf of defendants.
After considering the parties’ joint statements, briefing, supporting documentation, and
oral arguments, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY
1. Defendants’ motions for protective order (ECF Nos. 92, 93) are DENIED.
2. Defendant’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions (ECF No. 102) is
3. Plaintiff’s request that the court take judicial notice of declarations made by plaintiff
in a probate matter in Stanislaus County Superior Court (ECF No. 107 at 11) is
4. Within 60 days of this order:
a. Parties shall stipulate to an appropriate protective order to address defendants’
privacy concerns raised in defendants’ motions for protective order, after
which, defendants SHALL RESPOND to plaintiff’s discovery requests
regarding defendants’ net worth, and plaintiff shall respond to any outstanding
b. Plaintiff SHALL BE DEPOSED. Parties shall meet and confer, with input
from plaintiff’s medical providers, and determine how best to accommodate
plaintiff’s medical needs and defendants’ right to discovery.
5. Parties are advised to meet and confer regarding any continuing discovery disputes. If
issues persist, parties are encouraged to utilize the undersigned’s informal discovery
procedures, which can be found on the website for the Eastern District of California:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?