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.

Andrew Rick Lopez v. Arnold Schwarzenegger

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


October 30, 2012

ANDREW RICK LOPEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

The discovery dispute in this matter came on for hearing on October 25, 2012, before the undersigned. Robert Navarro appeared for plaintiff and Matthew Ross Wilson represented the defendants. Following the hearing, this court makes the following ORDERS:

1. A protective order is to be submitted by the parties forthwith;

2. Within two weeks, or by November 8, 2012, subject to the protective order to be reviewed, approved and issued by the court, documents responsive to plaintiff's requests for production (RFP) nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, as modified and/or agreed to by the parties and articulated by the court at the hearing will be produced to plaintiff with the caveat that, as to RFP no. 7, it is only that request directed to defendants Berna, Buechler and Gomez which requires production in response (see below);

3. RFP no. 5 has been withdrawn;

4. With respect to RFP no. 6 directed to defendant Burt, within ten days, if this defendant cannot produce plaintiff's rebuttal to the CDC 128B-2 identified, he must serve upon plaintiff a statement under oath that he has conducted a search reasonably calculated to reveal the responsive document but has been unable to locate it, listing each of the places where his search was conducted.

5. As to RFP no. 6 directed to defendant Cronjeager and defendant Fischer, respectively, and as to RFP no. 8 propounded upon defendant Garcia, following production subject to the protective order in response, counsel for both parties are directed to discuss and formulate a plan and to return to court with the proposed plan before proceeding to act upon any confidential information/statements revealed;

6. As to RFP no. 8 directed to defendant Fischer, as well as RFP no. 7 served upon defendant Florez and defendant Garcia, those requests for production are denied; and

7. Counsel are to submit a stipulation for extending the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions forthwith.

20121030

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



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.