Elena Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling

Filing 1076

ORDER sustaining in part re 1049 Objection, filed by Ashorina Medina, Lisa Johnston, Elena M. Del Campo (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2010)

Elena Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling

Doc. 1076

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Elena Del Campo, et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 01-21151 JW ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY ORDER

Don R. Mealing, et al., Defendants. /

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Objection to November 9, 2010 Discovery Order. (See Docket Item No. 1049.) On November 18, 2010, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs' Objection. (See Docket Item No. 1055.) On November 22, 2010, Defendants filed their Opposition. (See Docket Item No. 1058.) On November 23, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their Reply. (See Docket Item No. 1065.) A district court may modify a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive matter, such as an order to compel discovery, if the order is "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-2, the court may not grant a motion objecting to a Magistrate Judge's order without first giving the opposing party an opportunity to brief the matter. See Civ. L.R. 72-2. Upon review, the Court finds good cause to SUSTAIN in part Plaintiffs' Objection to the November 9, 2010 Discovery Order.1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiffs' Objection as to Request for Production of Document No. 4 because these documents should be in the possession of Defendants.

1

(See Docket Item No. 1038.)

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (3) (2)

Plaintiffs should not have to reproduce documents they received from Defendants simply because Defendants' new counsel did not receive a full file from Defendants' former counsel. On or before November 29, 2010, Plaintiffs shall supplement their responses to interrogatory nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57. On or before November 29, 2010, Plaintiffs shall comply with requests for production of document nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 24, 25, 34, 35, 36 and 37.

Dated: November 24, 2010

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Anthony Joseph DeCristoforo [e-mail] Brett Marshall Godfrey [e-mail] David L. Hartsell [e-mail] Deepak Gupta [e-mail] Eric Neil Landau [e-mail] Eric Neil Landau [e-mail] George Stephen Azadian [e-mail] Hugh Tabor Verano [e-mail] John David Higginbotham [e-mail] Joshua G Blum [e-mail] Julie N. Richards [e-mail] Kendra S. Canape [e-mail] Lester A. Perry [e-mail] Michael Andrew Taitelman [e-mail] Natalie P. Vance [e-mail] O. Randolph Bragg [e-mail] Paul Arons [e-mail] Peter Manfred Bransten [e-mail] Ronald Wilcox [e-mail] Sharon Kathleen Grace [e-mail] Dated: November 24, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28