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)

Download PDF
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

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?