Creative Co-Op, Inc. v. The Elizabeth Lucas Company, LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER re 9 MOTION for Discovery Joint Expedited Discovery Dispute filed by Creative Co-Op, Inc.. Signed by Judge Beeler on 1/26/2012. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
CREATIVE CO-OP, INC.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

Plaintiff,

No. MC 12-80006 CW (LB)
ORDER RE 1/25/2012 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.
[ECF No. 9]

14

THE ELIZABETH LUCAS COMPANY,
LLC, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

17

The district court has referred all discovery in the above-captioned matter to United States

18

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Referral Order, ECF No. 3 at 1. On January 25, 2012, the parties

19

submitted a joint discovery letter in which they discussed whether the subpoena issued to Stuart J.

20

West and/or any associate of his firm, West & Associates, P.C. issued on December 23, 2011 by

21

Defendants The Elizabeth Lucas Company, LLC, et al., should be quashed or stayed. 1/25/2012

22

Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No. 9 at 1. On January 26, 2012, the court conducted a telephonic

23

hearing on the matter.

24

Plaintiff Creative Co-Op, Inc. argues that, at minimum, the subpoena should be stayed until the

25

district court overseeing the merits case in Idaho rules on a pending motion for a protective order

26

that would resolve this issue. Id. at 2. Defendants claim that subpoenaed letter is directly related to

27

its response and defense to the motion for a protective order pending in the District of Idaho. Id. at

28

5. Defendants further assert that the motion has not yet been fully briefed. Id.

MC 12-80006 (LB)
ORDER RE 1/25/2012 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

1

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to stay the subpoena until the district court resolves the

2

pending motion for a protective order. First, Plaintiff’s motion to quash raises the same issues

3

already being considered by the District of Idaho court, which is better positioned to determine the

4

arguments given its familiarity with the merits of the case. Second, the court’s review of the docket

5

sheet for the underlying case reveals that the motion, Defendants’ opposition, and Plaintiff’s reply

6

have been filed. See D.Idaho, C. 1:11-cv-00116-REB, ECF Nos. 62, 63, and 65. Thus, this court

7

cannot discern how the letter could play a role in the briefing of the issue. Third, it is otherwise

8

unclear how a stay would prejudice Defendants. Defendants appear to have a reasonable

9

understanding of the existence and contents of the letter based on their correspondence with Mr.

April 30, 2012, which should provide ample time for the District of Idaho court to rule on the motion

12
For the Northern District of California

West. 1/25/2012 Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No. 9 at 5. Also, fact discovery does not close until

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

and, if necessary, for the production of the single letter at issue. D.Idaho, C. 1:11-cv-00116-REB,

13

ECF No. 47 at 1.

14

The court further ORDERS the parties to file a brief status update within a week of the

15

resolution of the pending motion for a protective order by the District of Idaho court or by April 2,

16

2012, whichever is earlier. The status update shall state whether any controversies remain for

17

consideration by this court.

18

This disposes of ECF No. 9.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: January 26, 2012

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MC 12-80006 (LB)
ORDER RE 1/25/2012 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

2