Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Hill v. County of Sacramento

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


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 part and denied in part;

2. Defendants shall file their Rule 26 disclosure statement forthwith;

3. The parties shall file a joint stipulation seeking to extend expert disclosure dates to March, 2010, forthwith;

4. Defendants shall produce all Rule 26 disclosures by January 15, 2010;

5. Defendants shall produce remaining documents by February 15, 2010, or a statement that all documents were previously produced;

6. Defendants shall produce their privilege log by February 15, 2010.

7. The parties shall file a stipulated protective order upon production of defendants' documents, i.e., no later than February 15, 2010.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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