O'Toole et al v. City of Antioch et al

Filing 85

Discovery Order re: 78 Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding City of Antioch's Production of Documents. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/15/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SEAN O'TOOLE, et al.,

Case No. 11-cv-01502-PJH (MEJ)

Plaintiffs,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 78

9
10

CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint discovery letter, filed October 6, 2014, in which

14

the parties dispute whether the scope of discovery is limited to only any acts involving Plaintiffs

15

and the named Defendants. Dkt. No. 78. Having reviewed the parties’ positions, the Court

16

ORDERS as follows:

17

1)

Plaintiffs have not shown that third party discovery is necessary without first

18

exhausting discovery regarding the named Plaintiffs. Accordingly, discovery shall

19

be limited to the named Plaintiffs in this case. If Plaintiffs maintain that discovery

20

regarding nonparties is necessary after completion of this discovery, the parties

21

shall meet and confer and thereafter file a letter in compliance with the

22

undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order if they are unable to reach an agreement;

23

2)

Plaintiffs’ requests are overbroad. Plaintiffs must attempt to narrow their requests

24

in response to Defendants’ objections. If Plaintiffs object to Defendants’

25

responses, they must state the specific requests and why the responses are

26

objectionable. The parties shall then meet and confer in compliance with the

27

Standing Order to determine if they can reach an agreement; and

28

3)

For any claim of privilege, Defendants shall provide a privilege log in compliance

1

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5). The privilege log must be

2

sufficiently detailed and informative to justify the privilege. With respect to each

3

communication for which a claim of privilege or work product is made, Defendants

4

must identify: (a) all persons making or receiving the privileged or protected

5

communication; (b) the steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of the

6

communication, including affirmation that no unauthorized persons have received

7

the communication; (c) the date of the communication; and (d) the subject matter of

8

the communication.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: October 15, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

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