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)

Download PDF
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

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?