Lou v. MA Laboratories, Inc et al

Filing 249

ORDER RESOLVING VARIOUS DISCOVERY DISPUTES (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2013)

Download PDF
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?