Catanese et al v. Unilever

Filing 103

ORDER by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte denying without prejudice 90 Motion to Compel (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ROSS CORRIETTE,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C -11-01811 PJH (EDL)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL

v.
UNILEVER,
Defendant.

/

13
14

On January 7, 2014, Plaintiff Ross Corriette filed a motion to compel the production of

15

approximately 485 documents that Defendant claims are protected by privilege. Docket No. 90.

16

The District Court referred the motion to this Court on February 5, 2014. Docket No. 98. This case

17

is related to two others, Astiana v. Ben & Jerry’s Inc., No. 10-4387, and Thurston v. Conopco, No.

18

10-4937. The District Court ordered in January of 2013 that class certification and dispositive

19

motions in Astiana would go forward first, and that a motions schedule in Corriette and Thurston

20

would be set after the Astiana motions were heard. No. 10-4387, Docket No. 109. The District

21

Court has denied class certification in Astiana, and Defendant in that case anticipates filing a motion

22

for summary judgment.

23

Plaintiff Corriette’s motion to compel is very similar to a motion filed by Plaintiff Skye

24

Astiana in Astiana. The Court held a hearing on the Astiana motion on February 18, 2014, and

25

subsequently issued an order denying that motion to compel without prejudice until after the District

26

Court decided Defendant Ben & Jerry’s’ motion for summary judgment. No. 10-4387, Docket No.

27

213. At the hearing, the Court discussed with the parties and their counsel the possibility of cross-

28

production of documents in all three cases of documents ordered to be produced in Astiana.
Following the Court’s order denying the Astiana motion to compel, the parties in all three cases filed

a stipulation, signed by the District Court, agreeing that: 1) Defendants would produce all

2

documents that the Court ruled were not subject to the attorney-client privilege or the work-product

3

doctrine in its December 17, 2013 order in Thurston and Corriette, without waiving their right to

4

appeal that order and the District Court’s February 3, 2014 order affirming it; 2) to the extent

5

additional documents were ordered produced without time to take action because of discovery

6

deadlines, Defendants would not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from any scheduling order; and

7

3) Plaintiffs would not argue that the production of documents the Court ordered to be produced

8

constitutes a waiver of any privilege or work-product protection. No. 10-4387, Docket No. 215.

9

The parties also stated that the Thurston and Corriette parties “wish to avoid the time and expense of

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

re-litigating the issues regarding Defendants’ privileges raised in Ben & Jerry’s motion to compel in

11

Astiana.” Id. at 4. Because the parties are in agreement that the issues raised in the motions to

12

compel should be litigated only once, and this Court has ordered that it will address those issues

13

after the Astiana motion for summary judgment is decided, this Court hereby DENIES the motion to

14

compel, Docket No. 90, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: March 11, 2014
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2