Service Employees International Union, CTW/CLC et al v. SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West et al

Filing 381

DISCOVERY ORDER re 379 Letter filed by Joan Emslie, Andrew Reid, Fred Seavey, Ralph Cornejo, National Union of Healthcare Workers, Daniel Martin, Paul Kumar, Martha Figueroa, John Vellardita, Laura Kurre, Sal Rosselli, Freja Nelson, Ian Selden, Jorge Rodriguez, Phyllis Willett, Glenn Goldstein, Will Clayton, Aaron Brickman, Gabe Kristal, Mark Kipfer, Barbara Lewis, John Borsos, Gail Buhler. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/2/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
SEIU, et al., v. ROSSELLI et al., Defendants. _____________________________________/ Plaintiffs, No. C 09-00404 WHA (MEJ) DISCOVERY ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 LETTER

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On September 1, 2009, Defendants filed a letter detailing disputes that have arisen between the parties surrounding 49 subpoenas Plaintiff issued to Defendants. (Dkt. #379.) In their letter, Defendants request that the Court stay the subpoenas to allow the parties time to meet and confer regarding certain objections Defendants have to the subpoenas. According to Defendants, "Plaintiffs refuse to put a hold on the subpoenas for the parties to meet and confer in good faith for the purpose of causing a waiver of [D]efendants' and NUHW's objections by failure to timely obtain an order quashing the subpoenas." Notably, Defendants indicate that at least one subpoena is due September 2, 2009. Thus, despite both Judge Alsup's and the undersigned's prior admonition about bringing discovery disputes before the Court well in advance of any deadlines for production or compliance, Defendants have filed their letter on the eve of a deadline. Additionally, as Defendants are well aware at this juncture, discovery disputes must be brought in conformance with the undersigned's joint letter procedure. While Defendants may contend that Plaintiffs have refused to meet and confer in good faith, thereby necessitating their filing of the letter, the correspondence between counsel that Defendants submitted along with their letter is all dated September 1, 2009. Presumably, Plaintiffs served the subpoenas before September 1. Defendants therefore had ample time to confer with

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12
For the Northern District of California

opposing counsel and to file a joint letter if they failed to resolve their dispute. Those issues aside, Defendants have not shown that they are entitled to requested relief at this time. Specifically, Defendants have failed to cite any rule or legal authority in support of their request for a stay of the subpoena deadlines. Further, to the extent that Defendants object to the documents and information sought via the subpoenas and therefore seek an order modifying or quashing the subpoenas, Defendants have raised only generalized objections, without connecting the objections to specific subpoenas. The Court therefore finds insufficient grounds to stay the subpoena deadlines and Defendants request for a stay is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2009

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

_______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge