Lou v. MA Laboratories, Inc et al
Filing
249
ORDER RESOLVING VARIOUS DISCOVERY DISPUTES (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
MICHELLE LOU, individually and on behalf
13 of all others similarly situated,
14
15
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 12-cv-05409 WHA (NC)
ORDER RESOLVING VARIOUS
DISCOVERY DISPUTES
Re: Dkt. No. 237, 241
16 MA LABORATORIES INC., ABRAHAM
17
18
MA, CHRISTINE RAO, CHRISTY YEE,
Defendant.
19
20
This order summarizes the Court’s rulings on various discovery disputes presented
21 on the eve of class certification briefing in this employment case. On August 28, 2013, the
22 Court ordered the parties to submit a joint discovery status report by September 11, 2013.
23 Dkt. No. 227. The parties responded with competing reports merged into a single
24 document. Dkt. No. 233. Defendants then filed a supplement two days after the deadline
25 without requesting leave to do so. Dkt. No. 235. On September 16, 2013, the parties filed a
26 joint letter brief outlining their respective positions on a dispute over whether Defendants
27 properly issued subpoenas to certain third parties. Dkt. No. 237. Two days later, the parties
28 filed an additional letter brief discussing their dispute over the future use of subpoenas on
Case No. 12-cv-05409 WHA (NC)
ORDER RESOLVING VARIOUS
DISCOVERY DISPUTES
1 third parties and whether the Court should issue a protective order. Then on September 20,
2 2013, the Court supervised a meet and confer and heard argument regarding the parties’
3 letter briefs, as well as several other outstanding discovery disputes. As the Court explained
4 at the hearing, the Court rules as follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
Plaintiffs’ request to compel Defendants to produce Exhibits B and C submitted
with the September 11 status report is GRANTED.
Defendants’ request to seal Exhibits B and C submitted with the joint status
report is DENIED.
Defendants are ORDERED to either produce missing “last act fields” or “last
11
entry of the day fields” or alternatively to file and serve a declaration within
12
fourteen days demonstrating that this information has already been produced in
13
its entirety.
14
Plaintiffs’ request to compel Defendants to produce SPIFs input and calculation
15
data is DENIED. However, Defendants are ORDERED to file and serve a
16
declaration within fourteen days demonstrating that the requested data does not
17
exist.
18
The parties are ORDERED to each select five employees from the San Jose Ma
19
Labs location, and five employees from the Los Angeles Ma Labs location. The
20
parties must exchange lists by September 24, 2013. Defendants must produce
21
the headers only from e-pops and emails of the selected employees by
22
September 30, 2013. The Defendants’ request to impose costs on Plaintiffs for
23
this production is DENIED.
24
25
26
Plaintiffs’ request to compel Defendants to produce additional phone records is
DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ request to quash the three subpoenas that Defendants served on third
27
parties is DENIED, but these and future third party subpoenas will be limited by
28
a protective order to be entered by the Court. The Court will issue the protective
Case No. 12-cv-05409 WHA (NC)
ORDER RESOLVING VARIOUS
DISCOVERY DISPUTES
2
1
2
order separately.
Any party may object to this order within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
3
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Date: September 24, 2013
6
_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 12-cv-05409 WHA (NC)
ORDER RESOLVING VARIOUS
DISCOVERY DISPUTES
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?