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