Corbello v. DeVito

Filing 512

ORDER Denying 397 Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff. Granting 426 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Protective Order. Any request for relief not specifically addressed in this order is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/18/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

DONNA CORBELLO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THOMAS GAETANO DEVITO, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:08-cv-00867-RCJ-PAL
ORDER
(Mot to Compel - Dkt. #397)
(Cross-Mot for Prot Ord - Dkt. #426)

12
13

The court conducted a hearing on April 14, 2011, on the parties’ numerous discovery motions.

14

The court heard Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #397), and Cross-Motion for Protective

15

Order (Dkt. #426), and eleven other substantive discovery motions and related requests for relief.

16

Gregory Guillot, George Paul and Robert McKirgan appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and Samuel

17

Lionel, Daniel Mayeda, David Korzenik, Maximiliano Couvillier, III, and Eric Swanis appeared on

18

behalf of the Defendants. This order disposes of the following moving and responsive papers:

19

#397

Motion by Defendants Des McAnuff, Robert Gaudio, and Marshall Brickman to Compel
Discovery from Plaintiff;

#425

Response to Motion by Defendants Des McAnuff, Robert Gaudio, and Marshall
Brickman to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff (Doc. 397);

22

#426

Cross-Motion for Protective Order;

23

#427 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Marshall Brickman’s First Set of Interrogatories;

24

#433

Reply by Defendants Des McAnuff, Robert Gaudio, and Marshall Brickman re: Motion
to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff; and

#444

Reply re: Cross Motion for Protective Order.

20
21

25
26
27
28

Defendants’ motion to compel initially sought to compel a Response to Request for Production
No. 15, or in the alternative, to provide Answers to Interrogatory No.s 13 and 17. After the motion was

1

filed, the Defendants withdrew their request to compel answers to these interrogatories as Plaintiff had

2

Supplemented her responses and answered them. However, the motion to compel still seeks an order

3

compelling other discovery.

4
5

Having reviewed and considered the moving and responsive papers and the arguments of
counsel,

6

IT IS ORDERED that:

7

1.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff (Dkt. #397) is DENIED.

8

2.

Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #426) is GRANTED. The court

9

finds that Plaintiff has met her burden of establishing that Cindy Ceen is her

10

representative whose assistance is used to facilitate the rendition of legal services in this

11

case, and that Plaintiff and Ceen have treated all communications to and from counsel in

12

this matter as confidential and privileged, and that they have not disclosed these

13

confidential communications to any non-parties or third parties. Plaintiff is relieved of

14

the obligation to provide a privilege document log for privileged and confidential

15

communications to and from litigation counsel in this matter, including pre-litigation

16

communications, consistent with the court’s prior order.

17

3.

Any request for relief not specifically addressed in this order is DENIED.

18

Dated this 18th day of April, 2011.

19
20
21

___________________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2