Barnes et al v. The Hershey Company
Filing
202
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 190 Objection, filed by David C. Bolle, Jerry M. Chapman, Gregory P. Barnes, Mary D. Wasson. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 10/7/2014. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
GREGORY P. BARNES, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15
No. 3:12-cv-01334-CRB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
v.
THE HERSHEY COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
16
17
Now pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief of Nondispositive Pretrial Order of
18
Magistrate Judge (dkt. 190), in which Plaintiffs seek relief from Magistrate Judge Cousins’
19
September 5, 2014, Order Resolving Discovery Disputes (dkt. 182). Specifically, Plaintiffs
20
object to Cousins’ denial of three depositions, certain Rule 30(b)(6) topics, and two
21
document requests. Plaintiffs claim that the discovery sought is highly relevant to whether
22
Hershey engaged in a group termination of Customer Sales Executives and Category
23
Development Managers, the subject of Hershey’s pending summary judgment motion.
24
This Court concludes that the challenged aspects of Judge Cousins’ Order are neither
25
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Magistrate Judge Cousins recognized that in general,
26
“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
27
party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, even when the information
28
sought by the parties in a civil lawsuit is relevant, the Court must limit the scope of discovery
1
if it determines that (1) “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or
2
can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
3
expensive”; (2) “the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the
4
information by discovery in the action”; or (3) “the burden or expense of the proposed
5
discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in
6
controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the
7
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
8
In other words, Magistrate Judge Cousins’ task was to“strike[] the proper balance
between permitting relevant discovery and limiting the scope and burdens of the discovery to
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
what is proportional to the case,” Kaiser v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 12-cv-01311 DMR,
11
2013 WL 1856578, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2013), and that is precisely what he did. As to
12
the Vucovich deposition, Magistrate Judge Cousins reasonably determined that Plaintiffs
13
may renew their request if future discovery shows the deposition to be relevant and
14
necessary. Likewise, the Court sees no error in Magistrate Judge Cousins’ determination that
15
Plaintiffs failed to show why the Fanelli and Smuda depositions were warranted. Nor does
16
the Court see error in Magistrate Judge Cousins’ determination that the challenged topics
17
could be more appropriately addressed by interrogatories or document requests, or that they
18
are vague and unreasonably cumulative. As for Plaintiffs’ challenge to the denial of two
19
document requests, we agree with Magistrate Judge Cousins that the requests appear
20
unreasonably duplicative at this time.
21
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for relief is DENIED.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
7
Dated: October ___, 2014
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
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?