FCE Benefits Administrators, Inc. v. Training, Rehabilitation & Development Institute, Inc.

Filing 44

ORDER RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT re 43 Proposed Order filed by Training, Rehabilitation & Development Institute, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 18, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

ROBERT D. EASSA (SBN 107970)
[e-mail]
MARC A. KOONIN (SBN 166210)
[e-mail]
TARA K. CLANCY (SBN 253321)
[e-mail]
SEDGWICK LLP
333 Bush Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FCE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS, INC.

8
9
10
11
12
13

GRACE A. CARTER (SB 101610)
[e-mail]
STEPHEN H. HARRIS (SB 184608)
[e-mail]
LAWRENCE A. LEVENDOSKY (SB 254903)
[e-mail]
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
55 Second Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

14
15

Attorneys for Defendant
TRAINING, REHABILITATION &
DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, INC.

16
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

FCE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS, INC.,

21

Plaintiff,

22
23

NO. 3:15-CV-01160-JST
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: JOINT
STATUS REPORT

vs.

24

TRAINING, REHABILITATION &
DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE, INC., and DOES
1 through 10 inclusive,

25

Hon. Jon S. Tigar

Defendants.

Complaint filed:
Removal:

January 30, 2015
March 11, 2015

26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01160-JST

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Having considered the Joint Status Report submitted by Plaintiff FCE Benefit
Administrators, Inc. (“FCE”) and Defendant Training, Rehabilitation & Development Institute,
Inc. (“TRDI”) and good cause appearing, this Court sets the following deadlines:
A.

Rule 26 Disclosure: The Parties shall exchange Rule 26 Initial Disclosures by

January 29, 2016. Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(ii), on January 29, 2016, the parties will exchange
initial disclosures, including both a description by category and location of relevant documents
which support each party’s claims or defenses (unless their use would be solely for
impeachment), as well as copies in hard and/or PDF formats of documents identified in the initial
disclosures to the extent such documents are in each party’s possession. However, FCE need not
re-produce additional copies of the documents Bates Numbered FCE000001 through FCE004200
which it previously produced to TRDI. Additionally, disclosure of Electronically Stored
Information (“ESI”), particularly in its native format, shall not be required until the Court issues
an Order in response to a discovery plan submitted by the parties.
B.

Global Case Management Plan and Discovery Plan: The Parties shall jointly

submit a global case management plan for the instant federal court action and the related state
court action by January 29, 2016. The global case management plan shall be accompanied by a
joint discovery plan under Rule 26(f)(2). Any discovery responses which would otherwise be due
prior to that date shall instead be due no later than February 29, 2016. The joint discovery plan
shall address and/or propose a resolution for the following discovery issues:
1. Scope of anticipated discovery, including identification of potentially responsive
documents and the scope of e-discovery searches, including but not limited, where applicable, to
proposed search terms (including specific words or phrases, and the names of custodians for
whom ESI will be searched), the time frame(s) to be searched (including the ranges for creation
or receipt dates), ESI that the parties will presume is not reasonably accessible, and sources of
ESI that the parties agree are less likely to contain discoverable information from which
discovery will be postponed or avoided;

27
28
-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01160-JST

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

2. The manner and format in which ESI will be produced, including the extent, if any, to
which metadata will be produced;
3. How to deal with the parties’ outstanding written discovery requests, which include:
FCE’s special interrogatories and requests for production to TRDI in the state court action (set 2);
FCE’s interrogatories and requests for production to TRDI in the federal court action (set 1); and
TDI’s special interrogatories and requests for production to FCE in the state court action (set 1).
The parties may choose to agree to withdraw and re-issue new requests in light of the information
obtained at mediation and in the initial disclosures and/or meet and confer to narrow the scope of
the requests;
3. Dual use of discovery (i.e., whether discovery obtained in the federal action and in the
superior court action may be used in the other without limiting the number of discovery requests
that may be served in each action);
4. A phased discovery plan (particularly for ESI), including resolution to the extent
possible of the parties’ previously exchanged priority discovery proposals; and
5. The timing, location, and sequencing of depositions, including Rule 30(b)(6) Person
Most Qualified corporate depositions, including: (a) documents that the corporate designee is
requested to produce at such deposition; (b) whether the corporate designee may be deposed in
his or her individual capacity concurrent with the corporate deposition; (c) to the extent it is the
same individual, whether the corporate designee’s deposition shall proceed back to back for the
federal and state matter, while avoiding unnecessary repetition and duplication of questioning;
and (d) the proposed timing for depositions.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27
28
-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01160-JST

1
DATED: ____________2015
November 18,
2

HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

[PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01160-JST