Otey v. Crowdflower, Inc. et al

Filing 73

DISCOVERY ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting Defendants' protective order request re: 72 Discovery Letter Brief (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTOPHER OTEY
Plaintiff,

8
v.

No. C 12-5524 CRB (MEJ)
DISCOVERY ORDER
RE: DKT. NO. 72

9
CROWDFLOWER, INC., et al.,
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter, filed March 14, 2013.

13

Dkt. No. 72. The letter relates to 203 Requests for Admission and 139 Requests for Production that

14

Plaintiff has served on Defendants. Defendants have responded to 86 of Plaintiff’s RFAs

15

agreed to respond to 43 of Plaintiff’s RFPs by April 8, 2013. However, as Defendants have filed a

16

motion to bifurcate, which seeks to preliminarily focus discovery and motion practice in this action

17

on the issue of whether Defendants were Plaintiff’s “employer” for purposes of the FLSA and

18

Oregon law, Defendants request entry of a protective order from responding to the remainder of

19

Plaintiff’s RFAs and RFPs until after Judge Breyer rules on the bifurcation/stay motion. In addition,

20

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has already filed a motion for conditional collective-action

21

certification and there is therefore no purpose, at this stage, in conducting class discovery. Upon

22

review of the parties’ letter, the Court agrees that it is prudent to limit discovery until such time as

23

Judge Breyer has determined the bifurcation motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for a

24

protective order is GRANTED.

25

and

IT IS SO ORDERED

26
27
28

Dated: March 15, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge