Evans et al v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC et al

Filing 134

ORDER RE #125 PLAINTIFFS' FIRST DISCOVERY DISPUTE by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
ETOPIA EVANS, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

No. C 16-01030 WHA

v.
ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL
CLUB, LLC, et al.,

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’
FIRST DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Defendants.
/

17
18
19
20

The hearing on plaintiffs’ discovery dispute (Dkt. No. 125) currently set for December 1
is CANCELLED and will be reset subject to the following:
Plaintiffs should give notice to each “patient” for whom prescription records are sought,

21

so as to give those with purported interests affected by plaintiffs’ production request an

22

opportunity to be heard. Plaintiffs’ discovery letter should be brought as a formal motion

23

because it implicates privilege issues. Additionally, plaintiffs are advised to first depose the

24

“patients” to develop and challenge the bases for any claims of privilege. Plaintiffs’ letter

25

request to compel production of documents from Walgreen is DENIED as premature.

26

The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has a practice of submitting

27

three-page discovery letters with massive amounts of additional paperwork attached. In the

28

future, the firm must seek the Court’s permission to file such submissions. The Court will

1

determine on a case-by-case basis if the motions are appropriate for letter briefing, or if they

2

should be brought as formal motions to be heard on the normal 35-day track.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: November 28, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2