UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 6, 2012
E. & J. GALLO WINERY,
TOLEDO ENGINEERING CO., INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING PENDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES (Documents 46, 47 & 48)
On October 5, 2012, the parties to this action filed the following discovery motions: (1) Toledo Engineering Co., Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order; (2) Toledo Engineering Co., Inc.'s Motion to Compel Production & Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents; and (3) E. & J. Gallo Winery's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and Further Responses to Production of Documents. (Docs. 46-48.) A joint statement regarding the parties' discovery disputes and accompanying exhibits were filed October 19, 2012. (See Docs. 57-60.)
Meaningful meet and confer sessions were held at the undersigned's direction in Courtroom 10 on October 26, October 31, and November 7, 2012. An oral record was made regarding the discovery issues resolved as a result of those sessions (see Docs. 62-63, 69) and a Statement Regarding Resolved Discovery Issues was filed on November 9, 2012 (Doc. 71). Thereafter, the parties continued to work diligently toward resolution of their remaining discovery disputes, keeping the Court apprised of their progress. (Docs. 72-73, 76, 80.)
On December 5, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation Regarding Unresolved Discovery Issues. (Doc. 81.) A review of the stipulation reveals that all discovery disputes have been resolved and it appears that no further action by this Court is required at this time. More specifically, the parties advised as follows:
(1) Toledo's Motion for Protective Order: The parties report that depositions have been scheduled for December 13 and 14, 2012, of Toledo's Rule 30(b)(6) designees and that the issue has been resolved;
(2) Toledo's Motion to Compel Further Responses: The parties report that all issues have been resolved by way of Gallo's supplemental production received November 16, 2012. (Doc. 81 at 2.)
In the event of a future dispute specifically related to the issues raised by the parties in the original motions, and thought to be resolved by the parties' commendable meet and confer efforts, this Court shall issue a written decision. Otherwise, the motions filed by the parties on October 5, 2012, are HEREBY deemed moot and are denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.