Perez et al v. John Muir Health

Filing 69

Discovery Order re: 67 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Rosa Cerisano, Marlene Perez. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/30/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARLENE PEREZ, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01792-HSG (MEJ)

Plaintiffs,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 67

9
10

JOHN MUIR HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

In this employment discrimination case, the parties submit a discovery letter regarding

14

Plaintiffs Marlene Perez and Rosa Cerisano’s (“Plaintiffs”) request to compel Defendant John

15

Muir Health (“Defendant”) to produce documents. Dkt. No. 67. Plaintiffs argue that on March

16

20, 2016, they first learned of the existence of “numerous documents” responsive to their

17

discovery requests, and specifically relating to Ms. Perez’s work schedule and Ms. Cerisano’s

18

Voluntary Time Off requests. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs seek immediate compliance with their request to

19

produce these documents, originally propounded in October 2015 and January 2016, given that

20

Defendant will file its motion for summary judgment on March 31, 2016. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs

21

maintain they should not be compelled to review and analyze “hundreds, and perhaps thousands of

22

pages of documents that are highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims after receipt of the motion, while

23

simultaneously opposing the motion by the April 14, 2016 deadline.” Id. Defendant maintains the

24

dispute is moot given that upon learning of these documents, it agreed to produce them. Id.

25

However, Defendant states that “due to the volume of documents,” it will produce them on a

26

rolling basis, “every day until completed.” Id.

27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the

1

needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to

2

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

3

expense,” including by (1) prohibiting disclosure or discovery; (2) conditioning disclosure or

4

discovery on specified terms; (3) preventing inquiry into certain matters; or (4) limiting the scope

5

of disclosure or discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).

6

As Defendant sets forth no objections to the requests addressed in the parties’ letter, and it

7

has agreed to produce the documents on a rolling basis, Plaintiffs’ request to compel production is

8

GRANTED. As Defendant will file its motion for summary judgment tomorrow, the parties are

9

ORDERED to meet and confer in a good faith attempt to draft and file a stipulated request before
the presiding judge to continue the briefing and hearing deadlines pending Plaintiffs’ receipt and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

review of these documents. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Plaintiffs shall instead

12

file a motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: March 30, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2