Cervantes et al v. Liu Cheng Inc. et al

Filing 54

INTERIM ORDER re 39 40 & 47 Plaintiffs Motions to Compel Production of Documents, Answers to Interrogatories and for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 9/3/09. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 9/3/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FRANCISCO CERVANTES, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) LIU CHENG, INC. dba MANDARIN ) GOURMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 08-3817 JW (PVT) INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MO TIO N S TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DO C U M E N T S , ANSWERS TO IN TER R O GA TO R IES AND FOR SANCTIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Currently pending before the court are Plaintiffs' motions to compel production of documents, to compel answers to interrogatories and for sanctions (see docket nos. 39, 40 and 47). Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this interim order. Based on the moving and opposition papers submitted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiffs' motions to compel production of documents and to compel answers to interrogatories is CONTINUED to October 6, 2009. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is continued to November 3, 2009. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than September 15, 2009, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer in person regarding the discovery requests at issue in the motions to compel production of documents and to compel answers to interrogatories. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than September 22, 2009, Defendants shall file a OR D E R, page 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

supplemental opposition brief that addresses each and every document request and interrogatory that remains in dispute after the parties' meet and confer. Addressing only a "sample" is inadequate. Further, the opposition must respond to the arguments made in the moving papers (omitting only those that have been resolved by the parties' meet and confer). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file their reply no later than September 29, 2009. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' request for sanctions (which was improperly included in their opposition papers) is DENIED without prejudice to a properly noticed motion, if warranted. See CIVIL L.R. 7-8(a). Any such motion shall be noticed for hearing no earlier than November 3, 2009. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than September 29, 2009, the parties shall submit either a stipulated form of protective order to govern the handling of confidential information, or else their respective proposed forms of order. The court strongly recommends that the parties base their form of order on the court's model form of Stipulated Protective Order, copies of which are available from the "Forms" section of the court's website (at www.cand.uscourts.gov). Pending entry of such a protective order, the terms set forth in the court's model form of order (other than the optional provisions) shall govern the handling of confidential information produced during discovery in this case. In light of this protection, no information relevant to this action may be withheld from discovery solely on grounds of privacy and/or confidentiality. Instead, any information that warrants protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be marked "Confidential" pursuant to the provisions of the protective order. Dated: 9/3/09 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

OR D E R, page 2