Planet Aid, Inc. et al v. Reveal, Center for Investigative Reporting et al
Filing
65
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION; DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 11/27/2017. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2017)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PLANET AID, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
11
REVEAL, CENTER FOR
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 17-cv-03695-MMC
12
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION;
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 59, 60
13
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Administrative Motion for Clarification of Court Order
14
to Take the Deposition of Deborah George,” filed November 15, 2017, by which plaintiffs
15
seek an order requiring defendants to produce all materials responsive to the document
16
request contained in plaintiffs’ Amended Notice to Take the Deposition of Deborah
17
George. The Court having read and considered the motion and defendants’ response
18
thereto, the motion is hereby granted in part and denied in part as follows:
19
To the extent the document request includes a request to produce all documents
20
exchanged and all communications transmitted between Deborah George and any
21
officer, director, or employee of Reveal concerning Planet Aid, Inc., DAPP Malawi,1 or
22
Human Federation, the motion is hereby GRANTED, and defendants shall produce all
23
such materials no later than Wednesday, November 29, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. In all other
24
respects, the motion is hereby DENIED.
25
Also before the Court is defendants’ “Motion for Protective Order,” filed November
26
27
28
1
As used above, “Planet Aid, Inc.” and “DAPP Malawi” include the officers,
directors, and employees of each said entity.
1
15, 2017, by which defendants seek an order stating they need not respond to plaintiffs’
2
document request. In light of the above ruling, and in light of the scheduled date for the
3
above-referenced deposition, which pre-dates the date on which defendants’ motion is
4
noticed for hearing, defendants’ motion is hereby DENIED as moot.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: November 27, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
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?