Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook

Filing 22

ORDER RE EXPEDITED DISCOVERY re 21 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Re: Joint Expedited Discovery Plan filed by Henry Schein, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 29, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HENRY SCHEIN, INC., Case No. 16-cv-03166-JST Plaintiff, 8 ORDER RE EXPEDITED DISCOVERY v. Re: ECF No. 21 9 10 JENNIFER COOK, Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 The parties have submitted a joint stipulated expedited discovery plan in this trade secrets 14 case. ECF No. 21. One evident purpose of the agreement is to allow the parties quickly to obtain 15 the information they need to evaluate whether the case can be settled in the near term. See id. at 1 16 (“The expedited discovery is preliminary. It shall not prejudice the parties’ rights to conduct more 17 fulsome discovery in the normal course should this case not resolve.”) The Court adopts the 18 parties’ proposed stipulation as its order. See id. at 21-1 to 21-2. 19 In their stipulation, the parties identify a dispute regarding Defendant’s deposition. 20 Plaintiff seeks an order allowing it to conduct an additional session of that deposition “during 21 regular discovery, should the case not resolve and that become necessary.” Id. at 2. Defendant 22 asks that the Court prohibit Plaintiff in any subsequent session of her deposition from revisiting 23 issues addressed in the first session. Id. at 3. 24 The Court will permit a later session of Plaintiff’s deposition if the case does not resolve. 25 The Court will not now preclude Plaintiff at a later session of Defendant’s deposition from 26 revisiting issues raised in the first session. Because discovery has not begun, it is not possible to 27 know at this stage what information might later come to light as discovery progresses. The parties 28 have done a commendable job of identifying the triage discovery they need to conduct settlement 1 negotiations. Not surprisingly, that includes Defendant’s deposition. It is not possible for the 2 parties to know, or the Court to determine, at this point whether more comprehensive discovery 3 will reveal the need to revisit topics from the first session of Defendant’s deposition. If necessary, 4 the parties can ask the Court to make that determination later on a fuller record. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 29, 2016 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 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 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?