Barker v. Insight Global, LLC

Filing 195

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 186 Joint Discovery Letter re Litigation Funding. (vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

JOHN BARKER,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No.16-cv-07186-BLF (VKD)

v.
INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
DISPUTE LETTER RE LITIGATION
FUNDING
Re: Dkt. No. 186

Defendants Insight Global, LLC and Second Amended and Restated Insight Global, LLC

14

2013 Incentive Plan (collectively “Insight Global”) move to compel plaintiff John Barker to

15

respond to an interrogatory and/or file an amended case management statement disclosing that

16

Beacon Hill Staffing Group, LLC (“Beacon Hill”) is funding his proposed class action.

17

The Court finds this dispute suitable for decision without a hearing.

18

This dispute concerns a matter that never should have required the Court’s assistance.

19

Both parties appear to agree that Beacon Hill is funding Mr. Barker’s proposed class action. Mr.

20

Barker claims that he has already disclosed this information to Beacon Hill by producing

21

documents and responding to questions asked in deposition. Beacon Hill claims the specific

22

representation that it seeks is responsive to Interrogatory No. 7 to which Mr. Barker objects. As

23

Mr. Barker concedes, Magistrate Judge Lloyd earlier rejected Mr. Barker’s privilege claim with

24

respect to whether Beacon Hill is paying Mr. Barker’s legal fees. Dkt. No. 130. Although it is

25

unnecessary for a party to supplement or correct information provided in initial disclosures or in a

26

discovery response if the additional or corrective information has otherwise been made known to

27

its adversary, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A), the parties debate whether Mr. Barker has already

28

provided the additional or corrective information by other means. To avoid further unnecessary

1

dispute on this point, Mr. Barker must promptly supplement his outstanding interrogatory

2

responses to make clear that Beacon Hill is funding his proposed class action.

3

Both parties also appear to agree that Mr. Barker owes a duty to the Court to supplement or

4

correct incomplete information previously provided to the Court. See Civil L.R. 3-15(a)(2) (“A

5

party has a continuing duty to supplements its certification [of non-party interested entities or

6

persons] if an entity becomes interested . . . during the pendency of the proceeding.”). Mr. Barker

7

must promptly advise the Court of any person or entity that is funding the prosecution of his

8

proposed class action claims. He need not file an amended case management statement solely for

9

this purpose, but may file an amended disclosure under Civil Local Rule 3-15.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11, 2018

12
13
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

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