Johnson et al v. Hewlett-Packard Company
Filing
214
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER'S DISCOVERY ORDER NO. 9. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 5/27/2011. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JEFFREY JOHNSON, et al.,
12
Plaintiff(s),
13
14
v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
15
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C09-3596 CRB (BZ)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL
MASTER’S DISCOVERY
ORDER NO. 9
16
17
Having reviewed the parties’ papers regarding plaintiffs’
18
objections to Judge Warren’s Discovery Management Order (DMO)
19
No. 9, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ objections are
20
OVERRULED.
21
plaintiffs’ “use of ‘Omega’ is to a computer program or a
22
system of that name, and not to an ‘ecosystem’ of which Omega
23
is merely a part.”
24
object to this Order, which specifically limited the scope of
25
discovery, and Judge Warren has applied this definition of
26
“Omega” throughout the time he has presided over the parties’
27
///
28
///
On January 27, 2011, Judge Warren ruled that the
Docket No. 137 at 5.
1
Plaintiffs did not
1
discovery disputes.1
2
plaintiffs now object to Judge Warren’s interpretation of
3
“Omega” in DMO No. 9, which was based on his January 27
4
ruling, that objection is untimely.
5
party may file objections to...the master’s [order] no later
6
than 21 days after a copy is served, unless the court sets a
7
different time.”)
8
file their proposed fourth amended complaint, plaintiffs
9
should seek leave from Judge Breyer to ask Judge Warren to
10
Accordingly, to the extent that
See FRCP 53(f)(2)(“A
Should Judge Breyer permit plaintiffs to
review his discovery ruling in light of the amended complaint.
11
Plaintiffs also object to DMO No. 9 to the extent that
12
Judge Warren ruled that because the present complaint only
13
alleges errors by the Calculator, errors by any other part of
14
the compensation system are not relevant.
15
so rule.
16
confirming that defendant was permitted to make redactions
17
consistent with DMO Nos. 3 and 6, and that defendant had
18
averred that it has done so.
19
appear to have been asked to review specific redactions to
20
determine whether they were improper, plaintiffs’ objections
DMO No. 9 does not
I read Judge Warren’s ruling in DMO No. 9 as simply
Since Judge Warren does not
21
22
1
23
24
25
26
27
28
Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, Judge Warren’s
January 27 Order was not a preliminary ruling. In DMO No. 6,
posted on March 14, 2011, Judge Warren confirmed that this
issue had been resolved in January: “The scope of what is and
what isn’t ‘Omega’ has been a central theme in these discovery
disputes. In [DMO #3], the Referee, relying on the allegations
of the operative Third Amended Complaint, resolved this issue
by ruling that Plaintiffs’ use of the term ‘Omega’ is to a
computer program or a system by that name, and not to some sort
of compensation ‘ecosystem’ of which Omega is merely a part
(see, DMO #3 ¶ 5-7). No party appealed from DMO #3.” Docket
No. 176 at fn. 2. See also Docket No. 193 at 2-3.
2
1
are misplaced.
2
Dated: May 27, 2011
3
4
Bernard Zimmerman
United States Magistrate Judge
5
6
G:\BZALL\-REFS\JOHNSON V. HEWLETT-PACKARD\ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER NO. 9.wpd
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?