Hardin v. Mendocino Coast District Hospital et al

Filing 249

Discovery Order re 237 Discovery Order, Terminate Motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 9/6/2019. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ELLEN HARDIN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-05554-JST (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 237
MENDOCINO COAST DISTRICT
HOSPITAL, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

In ECF No. 237, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for reconsideration pursuant to

14

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2) of a portion of ECF No. 106. Because the parties’ briefing on the

15

motion for reconsideration was all-or-nothing, the Court made some observations about subjects

16

addressed in documents produced by Antelope Valley and Community Regional that could be

17

sufficiently relevant to this action to warrant Defendants’ use of them notwithstanding Plaintiff

18

Ellen Hardin’s privacy objections. The prior employers had produced hundreds of pages of

19

documents, however, and the Court wanted to issue a precise order. Accordingly, the Court

20

ordered the parties to meet and confer, and if they could not agree (they have not) to submit

21

competing proposals by Bates number specifying exactly which pages in the document

22

productions Defendants should be able to use. The Court ordered the parties to submit the letter

23

brief by 3:00 p.m. today so that the Court could issue a follow-on order this afternoon in light of

24

the depositions starting on Monday, see ECF No. 222, to which these documents are relevant. The

25

parties have filed their joint brief, see ECF No. 248, and the Court has considered it.

26

Because it is important for the Court to issue this order today, the Court does not explain

27

for each document why it does or does not agree with the request to use it. The Court’s order

28

follows the reasoning set out in ECF No. 237 and the further arguments of the parties in the joint

1

letter brief. A detailed order explaining the Court’s decision as to each document could not

2

feasibly be issued today.
The Court ORDERS that Defendants1 may use the following documents, and no others,

3
4

from the document productions of Antelope Valley and Community Regional:
Antelope Valley: AVH 1-7, 9-12, 17-26, 28-38, 40, 43-47, 60, 71, 74-76, 78-83, 85-93,

5
6

95-106, 109, 151-53.
Community Regional: CRMCHRD 1-16, 19-22, 29-41, 62-65, 166-94, 197-201, 207, 212,

7
8

214, 216, 218, 221, 226, 228.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: September 6, 2019

13
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Hardin can use them too, of course. Here, it is the Defendants who are making the request.
2