Filed: Nov. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs' motion to compel and defendants' motion for protective order came on regularly for hearing on November 16, 2016. 1 Brian Taylor appeared for plaintiffs. Chad Purdie appeared for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS 2 AS FOLLOWS: 1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 68) is granted in part and denied in part. Within
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs' motion to compel and defendants' motion for protective order came on regularly for hearing on November 16, 2016. 1 Brian Taylor appeared for plaintiffs. Chad Purdie appeared for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS 2 AS FOLLOWS: 1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 68) is granted in part and denied in part. Within ..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs' motion to compel and defendants' motion for protective order came on regularly for hearing on November 16, 2016.1 Brian Taylor appeared for plaintiffs. Chad Purdie appeared for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS2 AS FOLLOWS:
1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 68) is granted in part and denied in part. Within thirty days, substantive discovery responses shall be provided to discovery as set forth below, except insofar as the motion for protective order is granted or defendants' objections have been sustained.
a. Request for Production ("RFP") to Bachosa Nos. 1-12, 18-23, 29-30; RFP to Andonie Nos. 1-10, 16-19, 25-26; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 1-10, 16-19, 25-26; Interrogatories to Bachosa Nos. 1-17; Interrogatories to Andonie Nos. 1-17; Interrogatories to Jarufe Nos. 1-17; Amended Request for Admission ("RFA") to Bachosa Nos. 1-19, 27-33; Amended RFA to Andonie Nos. 1-17, 19-24; Amended RFA to Jarufe Nos. 1-13, 15-21.
Plaintiffs have made a colorable showing regarding the jurisdictional issues. Defendants' objections based on jurisdictional discovery are overruled.
b. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 8, 12-17, 19, 23-28; RFP to Andonie Nos. 8, 10-15, 17, 19-24; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 8, 10-15, 17, 19- 24; Interrogatories to Bachosa Nos. 12-15; Interrogatories to Andonie Nos. 12-15; Interrogatories to Jarufe Nos. 12-15; Amended RFA to Bachosa Nos. 11-26, 28, 30; Amended RFA to Andonie Nos. 11-18, 20, 22, 24; Amended RFA to Jarufe Nos. 7-14, 16, 18, 20-21.
Defendants' objection based on merits based discovery is sustained in part, as set forth below in the ruling on the motion for protective order.
c. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 1-6; RFP to Andonie Nos. 1-6; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 1-6; Interrogatories to Bachosa Nos. 1-11; Interrogatories to Andonie Nos. 1-11; Interrogatories to Jarufe Nos. 1-11.
Defendants' objection related to time period/scope of discovery is sustained in part. In responding to the discovery compelled here, defendants shall provide information for five years prior to the filing of the lawsuit up until the date the instant action was filed. Current property holdings need not be provided.
d. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 1-6; RFP to Andonie Nos. 1-6; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 1-6; Interrogatories to Bachosa Nos. 1, 3, 5-11; Interrogatories to Andonie Nos. 1, 3, 5-11; Interrogatories to Jarufe Nos. 1, 3, 5-11; Amended RFA to Bachosa No. 27.
Defendant's objection related to contracts entered into, communications and calls made from, and property from outside the State of California is sustained.
e. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 3, 6-10, 12, 18, 19, 20-23, 29-30; RFP to Andonie Nos. 3, 6-10, 16-10, 25-26; RFP to Jarufe Nos. 3, 6-10, 16-19, 25, 26.
Defendants' objection related to financial records is sustained without prejudice to renewal of the motion to compel after resolution of the pending motions to dismiss.
f. RFP to Bachosa Nos. 1-2, 4-5, 9-11, 20-22; Interrogatories to Bachosa Nos. 4-13; Amended RFA to Bachosa No. 27.
Defendant's objection related to discovery of information pertaining to defendant Bachosa's parent companies and subsidiaries is sustained without prejudice to plaintiffs propounding specific discovery directed to determining whether defendant Bachosa has any affiliates with contacts in California.
2. Defendants' motion for protective order staying merits discovery (ECF No. 33) is granted in part and denied in part. Pending resolution of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, defendants need not respond to merits based discovery except as set forth below:
a. RFP No. 8 and Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13 propounded to all defendants.
