Jackson v. Calone, et al.

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/21/2017 ORDERING Defendants shall serve amended responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents (Sets One and Two); Defendants shall serve their responses to Sets One and Two and produce responsive documents within 30 days of the date of this order. 81 , 82 (Reader, L)

1
2
3

JAMES R. KIRBY II [SBN: 88911]
NAGELEY, KIRBY & WINBERRY, LLP
8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 172
Sacramento, CA 95926
Telephone No: [phone]
Facsimile No: [phone]

4
5

Attorneys for Plaintiff DOROTHY RODDEN JACKSON

6
7
8
9
10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DOROTHY RODDEN JACKSON,
Case No.: 2:16-cv-00891-TLN-KJN
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

vs.
RICHARD CALONE; CALONE & HARREL
LAW GROUP, LLP; CALONE & BEATTIE,
LLP; CALONE LAW GROUP, LLP,
Defendant.

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE
MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(SETS ONE AND TWO)
DATE: APRIL 27, 2017
TIME: 10:00
DEPT: 25
TRIAL DATE: NONE SET

16
17
18

The parties stipulate the Court may drop the pending hearings on Plaintiff’s motions to

19

compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Sets One and Two) [ECF

20

Nos. 81 & 82], and issue the following order:

21
22

1. Defendants shall serve amended responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of
Documents (Sets One and Two) as follows:

23

(A) Requests Nos. 1-3, 10, 18-35, 37-41, & 43 (Set One) & 44-71 (Set Two):

24

The amended response shall identify each request. Defendants shall produce responsive

25

documents, identified and correlated to each respective request by Bates number. If Defendants

26

have already produced responsive documents, they need not be produced again. For documents

27

previously produced, Defendants need only identify the request and correlate previously-produced

28

responsive documents to that request by Bates number.
-1

1

If documents responsive to an individual request do not exist, Defendants shall state for

2

each request that responsive documents either (a) never existed, (b) once existed and were lost or

3

destroyed (with an explanation of the circumstances) or (c) are believed to currently exist but

4

cannot be located with a description of the efforts made to locate them.

5

(B) Requests Nos. 4-9 (Set One):

6

The parties agree Plaintiff’s present inability to access metadata on electronic files

7

Defendants have produced appears to be a technical problem rather than a refusal or failure to

8

produce on Defendants’ part. The parties agree to work together in good faith to transfer to

9

Plaintiff the responsive requested files in native format with metadata intact in an accessible form.

10

This agreement is without prejudice to the right of either party to seek relief from the Court should

11

their efforts prove unavailing.

12

(C) Requests Nos. 11 & 17 (Set One):

13

If Defendants have responsive documents but contend they are privileged, they shall

14

provide Plaintiff with a privilege log within the time limit provided in Paragraph 2. Otherwise,

15

Defendants shall respond as provided in Paragraph 1(A).

16
17

2. Defendants shall serve their responses to Sets One and Two and produce responsive
documents within thirty days of the date of this order.

18

3. This order resolves the motions filed at ECF Nos. 81 and 82.

19

SO STIPULATED:

20

Dated: April 20, 2017

/s/ Theresa M. LaVoie_______________
Theresa M. LaVoie
Counsel for Defendants

Dated: April 20, 2017

/s/ James R. Kirby II
James R. Kirby II
Counsel for Plaintiff

21
22
23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2017

27
28
-2

_____