Brown et al v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
Filing
75
DISCOVERY ORDER re 71 filed by Eric Lohela, Rosminah Brown. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 9/6/2012. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
ROSMINAH BROWN, et al.,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
Plaintiffs,
No. C 11-03082 LB
DISCOVERY ORDER
v.
13
THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
14
15
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
16
The parties previously filed a joint discovery letter. See ECF No. 52. Most of Defendant’s
17
opposition to the discovery was about staying discovery pending an interlocutory appeal. See id.
18
Defendant also made some relevance objections and high-level burden objections. See id.
19
The court rejected the relevancy objections and said that it was not inclined to stay discovery
20
pending any interlocutory appeal. 8/10/12 Order, ECF No. 64. It did say it would permit Defendant
21
to raise objections more specifically. Id. at 4 (the court’s joint discovery letter procedures are not
22
meant to limit the parties’ ability to raise issues but instead are to facilitate the court’s review of the
23
issues). Going forward, it was the court’s intent to have joint letters to address issues like burden.
24
See id. (disputes are buried in the attachments; parties need to address them directly).
25
This process, however, is not meant to be a tool to delay discovery. The court expects the parties
26
to act in good faith and work diligently to present any disputes to the court via the joint letter
27
process. The process allows Plaintiffs to demand a meet-and-confer with ten days’ advance notice.
28
A joint letter is filed five days after the meeting. This allows the parties to raise a dispute within
C 11-03082 LB
ORDER
1
2
3
roughly two weeks to the court. For now, the court will stick to that process.
Under the circumstances, the court denies the motion for administrative relief at ECF No. 71.
The court reiterates that it already ruled that the discovery is relevant.
4
This disposes of ECF No. 71.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated: September 6, 2012
7
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 11-03082 LB
ORDER
2
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?