Continental D.I.A. Diamond Products, Inc. v. Dong Young Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 67

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUEST [Docket No. 56] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONTINENTAL D.I.A. DIAMOND PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DONG YOUNG DIAMOND INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., DONGSOO LEE, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. / No. C 08-02136 SI ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUEST [Docket No. 56] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On November 12, 2008, plaintiff filed a letter brief requesting an order compelling defendants to produce certain documents. [Docket No. 56] Plaintiff requests production of documents responsive to its requests numbered 1-28. See Pl. Letter Brief, exs. 1, 2. The parties are currently negotiating the terms of a protective order. Plaintiff states that if defendants believe responsive documents contain confidential and proprietary information, plaintiff is amenable to those documents being temporarily designated as "Highly Confidential ­ Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only," pending the entry of a protective order. Defendants respond by letter brief that they are willing to produce documents responsive to requests 1-8 and 10-25 prior to the entry of a protective order on an "Attorneys' Eyes Only" basis. [Docket No. 63] Accordingly, defendants are ordered to produce these documents subject to the temporary confidentiality designation. Defendants do not address plaintiff's remaining requests in their letter brief. In their initial response to plaintiff's request that they would produce documents 9 and 26 "at a time and place

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

mutually agreeable to counsel." See Pl. Letter Brief, ex. 3. Defendants are ordered to produce these documents by December 1, 2008. In their initial response to plaintiff's requests 27 and 28, defendants stated that these requests were "identical" to request 26. The requests are not identical: 26 requests documents evidencing "terms" of agreements, while 27 and 28 refer to the negotiation of and modifications to agreements, respectively. Accordingly, defendants are ordered to produce documents responsive to requests 27 and 28 or to explain more clearly why the requests are duplicative. Finally, the parties' request for an extension of the December 5, 2008 mediation deadline to January 16, 2009 is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/25/08

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2