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