Barnes v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al

Filing 103

Discovery Order. As described in the attached order, the court allows the plaintiff to question Mr. Gay about whether the alleged misrepresentations made by Mr. Rooney factored into his separation from ERI. The discovery is allowed to facilitate t he upcoming mediation on July 28 and (with the parties' agreement) is designated confidential under the protective order absent stipulation of the parties or further order of the court. The court allows some flexibility in questioning but expect s the questioning to be tethered to the representations made to Mr. Barnes before and during his employment at ERI, whether Mr. Rooney made those representations elsewhere (whether to the public or internally in the company), and whether those representations factored into Mr. Rooney's separation from ERI. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 7/19/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

DAVID BARNES,

13
14
15

Case No. 16-cv-00477-EMC (LB)

Plaintiff,

12
v.

DISCOVERY ORDER

ENERGY RECOVERY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

The parties called the court with a discovery dispute about the scope of the deposition of ERI’s

18

CEO Joel Gay. The plaintiff wants to ask Mr. Gay about the circumstances surrounding the

19

departure of ERI’s former CEO Thomas Rooney, who left the company in January 2015. ERI and

20

Mr. Rooney’s counsel resist the questioning as irrelevant to this lawsuit, harassing, and possibly

21

based on the ulterior purpose of getting discovery for the related securities action.

22

The court orders the following. The plaintiff may depose Mr. Gay about Mr. Rooney’s alleged

23

misrepresentations to the plaintiff and similar (alleged) misrepresentations to the public (whether

24

to the “market,” analysts, or the press) and internally at ERI. (See Complaint — ECF No. 34, ¶¶

25

10-15, 18-24.) He also may ask about whether these alleged misrepresentations factored into Mr.

26

Rooney’s ending his employment with ERI. The discovery is allowed to facilitate the upcoming

27

mediation on July 28 and (with the parties’ agreement) is designated confidential under the

28

protective order absent stipulation of the parties or further order of the court. The court allows
ORDER (No.16-cv-00477-EMC (LB))

1

some flexibility in questioning but expects the questioning to be tethered to the representations

2

made to Mr. Barnes before and during his employment at ERI, whether Mr. Rooney made those

3

representations elsewhere (whether to the public or internally in the company), and whether those

4

representations factored into Mr. Rooney’s separation from ERI.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: July 19, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER (No.16-cv-00477-EMC) (LB)

2