The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
General ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT (Document 34)
For the Issuance of Subpoenas Under 28 ) U.S.C. § 1782(a) for the Taking of ) Depositions of and the Production of ) Documents by Douglas M. Mackay for Use in ) a Foreign Proceeding.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 3, 2011, the Republic of Ecuador and Dr. Diego Garcia Carrion, the Attorney General of the Republic of Ecuador ("the ROE" or "Applicants"), filed an ex parte application for an order pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 1782 to issue a subpoena to Douglas M. Mackay for the taking of a deposition and the production of documents for use in a foreign proceeding. (See Docs. 1 & 2.) The application was originally filed in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California, however, the matter was reassigned to the Fresno Division, and the undersigned, as a related case pursuant to the order of Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows dated June 10, 2011. (Doc. 7.)
On July 7, 2011, Chevron and Dr. Douglas M. Mackay ("Respondents") filed an Unopposed Motion to Intervene in this action, and together the parties entered into a stipulated briefing schedule. (Doc. 10; see also Doc. 11.)
On July 15, 2011, Respondents filed an opposition to the application. (Doc. 12.) On July 29, 2011, the Applicants filed a reply thereto. (Doc. 15.)
On August 16, 2011, Respondents filed a motion to stay the application and an application to shorten time to hear the motion. (Docs. 16 & 17.)
On August 19, 2011, the Court issued its Order granting the application to shorten time. (Doc. 18.)
On August 23, 2011, Applicants filed an opposition to the motion to stay. (Doc. 19.) The following day, Respondents filed a reply. (Doc. 21.)
On September 13, 2011, this Court issued its Order granting the ROE's application for the issuance of a subpoena, and denying Respondents' motion to stay the application. (Doc. 23.)
Following the Applicants' Request for Conference Call regarding a discovery dispute filed December 15, 2011 (Doc. 26), yet opposed by Respondents on that same date (Doc. 27), this Court issued a signed minute order, denying the request for a conference call. The Court advised the parties that in the event they failed to reach an agreement without the court's assistance, a noticed motion should be filed in accordance with this Court's Local Rules. (Doc. 28.)
In response, on December 19, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Disagreement. (Doc. 29; see also Docs. 30-32.) An Amended Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Dispute was filed on December 27, 2011. (Doc. 34; see also Docs. 35-36.)
The hearing regarding this dispute was taken off calendar and the matter was deemed submitted for written decision on January 18, 2012. The parties were also directed to separately submit and file proposed orders ...