UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
September 16, 2011
EDGAR W. TUTTLE; ERIC BRAUN;
THE BRAUN FAMILY TRUST; AND WENDY MEG SIEGEL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SKY BELL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William H. Alsup
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE HEARING
Date Comp. Filed: July 14, 2010 Trial Date: March 12, 2012
On September 13, 2011, the Court held a hearing regarding discovery disputes raised by 25 certain defendants. The following parties appeared through counsel to meet and confer and be 26 heard regarding these discovery disputes: McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Rothstein Kass & Co., PC, 27 Ernst & Young, LLC (collectively, the "Auditor Defendants'), and plaintiffs.
The parties resolved disputed issues during the meet-and-confer, and presented the following proposal to the Court for the Court's consideration. For the reasons stated on the 2 record, the Court hereby grants the parties' requested relief as follows.
Certification of a Plaintiff Class and Subclasses, Appointment of Class Representatives, and 5 2011; 7
Wendy Siegel, and Edgar Tuttle for depositions no later than September 26, 2011. Plaintiffs and
1. Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to the Plaintiffs'
Appointment of Class Counsel ("Motion for Class Certification")
remains due on September 15, 6
2. Plaintiffs will produce named plaintiffs Eric Braun, the Braun Family Trust,
Auditor Defendants will endeavor to schedule all three depositions on a single day at a mutually 10 agreeable date and time, in San Francisco. Time spent taking these depositions will not count 11 against any of the Auditor Defendants' total time for depositions under the Federal Rules of Civil 12
3. The depositions described in paragraph 2 will cover the issues set forth in the Auditor Defendants' letter brief of August 29, 2011 [Dkt. # 212]; 15
Auditor Defendants deem it necessary, they may file a supplemental brief in support of their 17 6:00 p.m. on September 28, 2011; 19
20 paragraph 4, Plaintiffs may file a response to any such brief if they deem it necessary, limited to 21 the issues addressed in the Auditor Defendants' Supplemental brief, as described in paragraph 4. 22 29, 2011; 24
October 13, 2011 at a time convenient for the Court; 26
27 named plaintiff (other than with attorneys) that relate to the
subject matter of the instant 28 litigation, which were created prior
to September 2009, when Plaintiffs' law firm was first
Procedure or other applicable rules or agreements;
4. After the depositions described in paragraph 2 have occurred, should any of the Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of no more than five pages, no later than 18
5. If any of the Auditor Defendants files a supplemental brief as described in Plaintiffs' response may be no more than five pages and must be filed no later than September 23
6. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification will be continued until
7. Plaintiffs will produce all documents reflecting communications to or from any contacted by a putative plaintiff in connection with the instant litigation. Plaintiffs will also 2 produce all non-privileged communications relating to the subject matter of the lawsuit 3 subsequent to September 2009. This discovery will be produced no later than September 19, 4 2011; 5
8. Plaintiffs will produce a privilege log documenting all privileged communications 6 created in September 2009 up until the filing of the Complaint on July 14, 2010. This privilege 7 log, along with any documents required to be produced under the Court's Supplemental Order to 8 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases Before Judge William Alsup 9 [Dkt. # 4], shall be produced to the Auditor Defendants no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day 10 before the depositions, as discussed in paragraph 2 above; 11
9. The parties agree that no privileged communications created after the filing of the Complaint on July 14, 2010 need to be logged ; 13
10. Nothing in this Order excuses or discharges any party's continuing obligation to 14 produce non-privileged documents as required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 15 Court's standing orders, or other agreements between the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP United States District Judge
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.