Canaday et al v. Comcast Corporation et al

Filing 69

ORDER by Judge Nandor J. Vadas in case 4:15-cv-04648-JSW; granting in part and denying in part (43) Discovery Letter Brief in case 4:16-cv-04177-JSW. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2016)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

EUREKA DIVISION

4
5
6

DANIEL CANADAY, et al.,

7

Case No.: 4:15-cv-04648-JSW

Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

vs.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al

11

Defendants.

12
13

JASON WILLIAMS, et al.,

14
15

Case No.: 4:15-cv-04732-JSW

Plaintiffs,
vs.

16
17

COMCAST CORPORATION, et al
Defendants.

18
19

LAMBERTO VALENCIA, et al.,
Case No.: 4:15-cv-04771-JSW

20
21

Plaintiffs,
vs.

22
23
24

COMCAST CORPORATION, et al
Defendants.

25
26
27
28

1

1
2

JEFFREY COLEMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

3
4
5

Case No.: 4:15-cv-04782-JSW

vs.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al

6

Defendants.

7
8

RICHARD NELSON, et al.,

Case No.: 4:15-cv-04793-JSW

9
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12

vs.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al

13

Defendants.

14
15

CALEB DUBOIS, et al.,

16

Plaintiffs,

17

Case No.: 4:15-cv-04809-JSW

vs.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

COMCAST CORPORATION, et al
Defendants.
GREGORY PETERS, et al.,
Case No.: 4:15-cv-04869-JSW
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al
Defendants.

25
26
27
28

2

1
2
3
4
5

LUPE LANDIN, JR. and EDUARDO
MURILLO,

Case No. 4:16-cv-04174-JSW

Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,

6
Defendants.

7
8

CORY BARRETT HALL,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,
Defendants.

13
14

Case No. 4:16-cv-004175-JSW

FRANCISCO FLORES and ANTHONY
BUSTOS-CABRERA,

Case No. 4:16-cv-04176-JSW

15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,

19
Defendants.
20
21

JOSEPH JOSHUA DAVIS, et al.
Plaintiffs,

22
23
24
25
26
27

Case No. 4:16-cv-04177-JSW

v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,
Defendants.
JAMES K. GRIMES and CARLOS
RAMOS,

Case No. 4:16-cv-04178-JSW

28
Plaintiffs,

3

1
2
3

v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,

4
5

Defendants.
STEPHEN MCBRIDE, et al.

6
7
8
9

Case No. 4:16-cv-04179-JSW

Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,

10

Defendants.

11
12
13

LAWRENCE ELKINS, et al.,

Case No. 4:16-CV-04180-JSW

Plaintiffs,
v.

14
15
16

COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,
Defendants.

17
18

HERNAN PAEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

19
20
21
22

v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,
Defendants.

23
24

KRIS COOK, et al.,

25
26
27
28

Case No. 4:16-cv-04181-JSW

Case No. 4:16-cv-04182-JSW

Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,

4

1
2

Defendants.
KEVIN HUFFMAN, et al.,

3
4
5
6

Case No. 4:16-cv-04183-JSW

Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and
COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA,
INC.,

7

[PROPOSED] ORDER re PRODUCTION
OF PRIVILEGE LOG AND
DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Defendants.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Two motions filed by Defendant Comcast Cable Communication Management, LLC
(“Comcast”) (erroneously sued as Comcast Corporation and Comcast of Contra Costa, Inc.) to
compel discovery were heard on October 4, 2016, before the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas. The
first motion pertained to section III of Defendant’s discovery brief of July 25, 2016, seeking

14

production of a privilege log, with regard to which this Order shall apply to all the Canaday

15

related cases. The second motion concerned Defendant’s discovery letter brief of September

16

16, 2016, which is decided by this Order in its entirety and applies to the following actions:

17

Davis v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-04177-JSW, Paez v. Comcast Corporation,

18

Case No. 4:16-cv-0-4181-JSW, Cook v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-04182-JSW,

19

and Huffman v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-04183-JSW.

20

Patrick Terry, Esq., and Arlo Uriarte, Esq., appeared on behalf of all Plaintiffs. Stephen

21

Taeusch, Esq. and Fred Alvarez, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Comcast. After

22

considering the parties’ positions, and counsel’s arguments, the Court hereby Orders as

23

follows:

24
25
26
27

With respect to Roman Numeral III, of the Defendant’s motion filed July 25, 2016,
2016, seeking to compel a privilege log, the Court Orders that, with respect to all the Canaday
related cases now pending in the Northern District of California, Defendant’s motion to compel
a privilege log is denied.

The Court denies Defendant’s motion without prejudice to

28
Defendant’s renewing the motion in the event that Plaintiffs assert the relevance of notice of

5

1

decertification in subsequent motions or Judge White, in subsequent rulings, concludes that

2

notice of decertification is relevant to determining the tolling period.

3

With respect to Defendant’s motion filed on September 16, 2016, the court orders that

4

with respect to issue 1, Plaintiffs Cayenne, Souza and Agundez shall respond, which may

5

include any objections, to outstanding discovery, or determine whether to seek dismissal of

6
7
8
9

their actions, by October 14, 2016. The Court further orders that, with respect to issue 2
regarding RFP No. 27, Plaintiffs in Huffman, Cook, Paez and Davis are to provide responses,
which may include objections, by October 14th. The court further orders that, with respect to
issue 3, Defendant’s request for amended responses is denied.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED: October 18, 2016

______________________________
Honorable Nandor J. Vadas
United States Magistrate Judge

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

6