UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 15, 2013
CHRISTOPHER OTEY PLAINTIFF,
CROWDFLOWER, INC., ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maria-Elena James United States Magistrate Judge
DISCOVERY ORDER RE: DKT. NO. 72
The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letter, filed March 14, 2013.
For the Northern District of California Plaintiff's RFAs and RFPs until after Judge Breyer Dkt. No. 72. The letter relates to 203 Requests for Admission and 139 Requests for Production that C on the issue of whether Defendants were Plaintiff's "employer" for purposes of the FLSA and Plaintiff has served on Defendants. Defendants have responded to 86 of Plaintiff's RFAs 15 agreed to respond to 43 of Plaintiff's RFPs by April 8, 2013. However, as Defendants have filed a D 16 motion to bifurcate, which seeks to preliminarily focus discovery and motion practice in this action and 18 Oregon law, Defendants request entry of a protective order from responding to the remainder of 19 rules on the bifurcation/stay motion. In addition, 20 Defendants argue that Plaintiff has already filed a motion for conditional collective-action 21 certification and there is therefore no purpose, at this stage, in conducting class discovery. Upon 22 review of the parties' letter, the Court agrees that it is prudent to limit discovery until such time as 23 Judge Breyer has determined the bifurcation motion. Accordingly, Defendants' request for a 24 protective order is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.