Tuttle et al v. Sky Bell Asset Management LLC et al

Filing 237

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE HEARING (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
CHRISTOPHER C. KEARNEY - #154101
BENEDICT Y. HUR - #224018
CODY S. HARRIS - #255302
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail:[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
THOMAS H.L. SELBY (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
KATHERINE M. TURNER (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
EUN YOUNG CHOI (Admitted Proc Hac Vice)
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11
12

Attorneys for Defendant
McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17
18
19
20
21
22

EDGAR W. TUTTLE; ERIC BRAUN; THE
BRAUN FAMILY TRUST; and WENDY
MEG SIEGEL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SKY BELL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC;
et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 3:10-cv-03588-WHA
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
DISCOVERY DISPUTE HEARING
Judge:

Hon. William H. Alsup

Date Comp. Filed:

July 14, 2010

Trial Date: March 12, 2012

23
24

On September 13, 2011, the Court held a hearing regarding discovery disputes raised by

25

certain defendants. The following parties appeared through counsel to meet and confer and be

26

heard regarding these discovery disputes: McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Rothstein Kass & Co., PC,

27

Ernst & Young, LLC (collectively, the “Auditor Defendants’), and plaintiffs.

28

The parties resolved disputed issues during the meet-and-confer, and presented the
1

580112.04

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE HEARING
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03588-WHA

1

following proposal to the Court for the Court’s consideration. For the reasons stated on the

2

record, the Court hereby grants the parties’ requested relief as follows.
1.

3

Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for

4

Certification of a Plaintiff Class and Subclasses, Appointment of Class Representatives, and

5

Appointment of Class Counsel (“Motion for Class Certification”) remains due on September 15,

6

2011;

7

2.

Plaintiffs will produce named plaintiffs Eric Braun, the Braun Family Trust,

8

Wendy Siegel, and Edgar Tuttle for depositions no later than September 26, 2011. Plaintiffs and

9

Auditor Defendants will endeavor to schedule all three depositions on a single day at a mutually

10

agreeable date and time, in San Francisco. Time spent taking these depositions will not count

11

against any of the Auditor Defendants’ total time for depositions under the Federal Rules of Civil

12

Procedure or other applicable rules or agreements;

13
14
15

3.

The depositions described in paragraph 2 will cover the issues set forth in the

Auditor Defendants’ letter brief of August 29, 2011 [Dkt. # 212];
4.

After the depositions described in paragraph 2 have occurred, should any of the

16

Auditor Defendants deem it necessary, they may file a supplemental brief in support of their

17

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification of no more than five pages, no later than

18

6:00 p.m. on September 28, 2011;

19

5.

If any of the Auditor Defendants files a supplemental brief as described in

20

paragraph 4, Plaintiffs may file a response to any such brief if they deem it necessary, limited to

21

the issues addressed in the Auditor Defendants’ Supplemental brief, as described in paragraph 4.

22

Plaintiffs’ response may be no more than five pages and must be filed no later than September

23

29, 2011;

24

6.

25
26

The hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification will be continued until

October 13, 2011 at a time convenient for the Court;
7.

Plaintiffs will produce all documents reflecting communications to or from any

27

named plaintiff (other than with attorneys) that relate to the subject matter of the instant

28

litigation, which were created prior to September 2009, when Plaintiffs’ law firm was first
2

580112.04

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE HEARING
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03588-WHA

1

contacted by a putative plaintiff in connection with the instant litigation. Plaintiffs will also

2

produce all non-privileged communications relating to the subject matter of the lawsuit

3

subsequent to September 2009. This discovery will be produced no later than September 19,

4

2011;

5

8.

Plaintiffs will produce a privilege log documenting all privileged communications

6

created in September 2009 up until the filing of the Complaint on July 14, 2010. This privilege

7

log, along with any documents required to be produced under the Court’s Supplemental Order to

8

Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases Before Judge William Alsup

9

[Dkt. # 4], shall be produced to the Auditor Defendants no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day

10
11
12
13

before the depositions, as discussed in paragraph 2 above;
9.

The parties agree that no privileged communications created after the filing of the

Complaint on July 14, 2010 need to be logged ;
10.

Nothing in this Order excuses or discharges any party’s continuing obligation to

14

produce non-privileged documents as required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

15

Court’s standing orders, or other agreements between the parties.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

September 16, 2011.
Dated: Se__S___________________
HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
580112.04

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE HEARING
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-03588-WHA