Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hill v. County of Sacramento

December 18, 2009

ANN HILL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows U.S. Magistrate Judge

SUMMARY ORDER

Previously pending on the undersigned's law and motion calendar for December 17, 2009, was defendants' Motion for Protective Order. The court now summarizes the orders made at hearing.

UNDISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS

The discovery requests not at issue in the joint statement (requests 2-14, 15-41, and 1, 42-45), shall be produced as previously agreed to by the parties, but the timing of that production shall be as ordered herein.*fn1

DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS

The disputed discovery requests identified in the joint statement (requests 5, 10, 11, 12), shall be produced by the dates set forth below and within the following confines. Request for Production #5 - Defendants shall produce documents responsive to this request as limited to the years 2005 to present, and limited to Sacramento International Airport retail concessions that sell products or services.

Request for Production #10 - Defendants shall produce documents responsive to this request as limited by the definition for "utilization" proffered by plaintiff, to include only actual employment, contract, use, and retention. It is also limited to concessions at the airport that sell products or services and to the years 2005 to present.

Request for Production #11 - Defendants shall produce documents responsive to this request as limited to airport concessions that sell products or services only, from 2004 to the present. Request for Production #12 - This request is duplicative of number 10, and therefore the same ruling applies to this request.

The timing of production is set forth in the Conclusion.

PROTECTIVE ORDER

The parties shall submit a stipulated protective order to protect, among other things, the privacy rights of other concessionaires. The parties are referred to Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n., 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding compelling reasons required in dispositive motions) and Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding good cause necessary in non-dispostive motions), for the standards required in seeking a protective order.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion for protective order (docket # 40) is granted in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.