Padgett et al v. City of Monte Sereno et al

Filing 579

ORDER overruling 570 Objection, filed by Joseph Padgett, Darla Padgett. Signed by Judge James Ware on January 9, 2009. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Darla Padgett, et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 04-03946 JW ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO RECOMMENDED DISCOVERY ORDER NO. 36

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

Brian Loventhal, et al., Defendants. /

The parties have been working through a Special Master to complete discovery, and, in particular, to disclose to Plaintiffs certain documents found on Defendants' hard drives. The Special Master has the authority to resolve all discovery disputes and to establish a procedure for identification and disclosure of privileged documents for the Court's review. (See Order Appointing Tom Denver as Special Master, Docket Item No. 306.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Objection to Special Master's Recommended Discovery Order No. 36 and Request for District Court to Reconsider Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions and Reallocation of Costs. (hereafter, "Objection," Docket Item No. 570.) In Discovery Order Number 36, the Special Master determined that charges incurred by Plaintiffs' computer expert should not be reallocated between Plaintiffs and Defendants. (Discovery Order No. 36 at 2-3, Docket Item No. 562.) The Special Master found that a prior order had directed Plaintiffs to bear the costs of their own computer expert and that case law did not support reallocation in light of the prior order. The Special Master also considered Plaintiffs' two-year delay in applying for reallocation and the substantial expense Plaintiffs had incurred in the interim. (Id. at

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2.) In addition, the Special Master declined to sanction Defendants for their alleged production of non-complaint privilege logs and for their alleged filing of a frivolous appeal of the Court's denial of Defendants' summary judgment motion. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiffs object to Discovery Order Number 36 on a variety of grounds, including, inter alia, Defendants' alleged spoilation of evidence, the Special Master's allegedly incorrect reliance on the Court's December 28, 2006 Order, and the Special Master's allegedly improper application of relevant case law. (See Objection at 3-17.) Upon review of both the Special Master's Order and Plaintiffs' Objections, the Court finds that the Special Master's ruling is not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' Objection to Discovery Order Number 36.

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

Dated: January 9, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Darla Kaye Padgett [e-mail] Joseph C. Howard [e-mail] M. Jeffery Kallis [e-mail] Thomas H R Denver [e-mail] Todd Holton Master [e-mail] Dated: January 9, 2009 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