Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook

Filing 30

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 21, 2016. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2016)

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
v.

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

9
10

JENNIFER COOK,

Re: ECF No. 26

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

This is a further order regarding the discovery dispute pending between Plaintiff and third
party Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. See ECF Nos. 26, 27.
The parties are ordered to appear in Courtroom 9 on July 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. for a

16

hearing regarding this dispute. The Court’s goal will be to determine a schedule for the

17

production of the documents Plaintiff has requested from Patterson; to determine whether the

18

documents can be produced in stages, instead of all at once; and to ensure that any discovery is

19

proportional to both the needs of the Plaintiff for full discovery and the expense that such

20

discovery might entail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (requiring district courts to consider “the

21

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative

22

access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving

23

the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

24

benefit”). Each side should be prepared to answer detailed questions concerning these

25

considerations.

26

If the parties submit a stipulated proposed schedule, the Court will adopt it. If the parties

27

submit competing schedules, the Court will endeavor to choose, in all respects, the single proposal

28

it concludes is most reasonable. See Michael Carrell & Richard Bales, Considering Final Offer

1

Arbitration to Resolve Public Sector Impasses in Times of Concession Bargaining, 28 Ohio St. J.

2

on Disp. Resol. 1, 20 (2013) (“In baseball arbitration ... the parties ... have every incentive to make

3

a reasonable proposal to the arbitrator because the arbitrator will choose the more reasonable

4

offer”); see also Sage Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc., No. 12-CV-6441-JST, 2014 WL

5

1379282, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014) (same).

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 21, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

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