ACP, Inc. v. Skypatrol, LLC et al

Filing 126

Discovery Order re 124 , 125 . Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 2/17/2017. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ACP, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-01572-PJH (MEJ)
Plaintiff,

8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 109, 110, 111

9
10

SKYPATROL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Pursuant to the Court’s February 1, 2017 Order, Plaintiff ACP, Inc. (“ACP”) and

14

Defendant Gordon Howard Associates, Inc. (“Gordon Howard”) met and conferred in the

15

undersigned’s courtroom on February 9, 2017. The parties successfully resolved several of their

16

discovery disputes (see Disc. Letters, Dkt. Nos. 109-11), and the Court instructed the parties to

17

draft a proposed order memorializing those resolutions.

18

The parties are unable to agree on a joint proposed order and have submitted competing

19

orders. ACP Prop. Order, Dkt. No. 124; G.H. Prop. Order, Dkt. No. 125. The parties filed their

20

competing orders on Friday, February 17, 2017. Given that the parties seek responses by Monday,

21

February 20, 2017, the Court issues the following partial Order.

22

1. Request for Production No. 27.

Gordon Howard shall amend its response to

23

Request for Production No. 27 to state that it has no responsive documents apart

24

from the document bearing stamp number PT 00000026. Gordon Howard served its

25

amended response on February 15, 2017, which resolves the dispute as to Request

26

for Production No. 27.

27
28

2. Request for Production No. 28.

In lieu of producing documents in response to

Request for Production No. 28 that sufficiently identify Gordon Howard’s

1

employees for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, the parties agree to a

2

stipulation. In the stipulation, Gordon Howard shall identify the allegations

3

regarding employment promises and state that those allegations relate only to the

4

individuals that are identified at ACP-GHSP000119. Gordon Howard agrees to

5

stipulate that the leadership team in Paragraph 8 are the individuals that are

6

identified at ACPGHSP000119 and that these were the employees that Mr.

7

Schwarz sought to protect.

8
9
10

The parties’ amended responses are due by February 22, 2017. The Court shall address
the remaining issues in a follow up order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dated: February 17, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2