Filed: Dec. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 01, 2017
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court are defendants' two motions for protective order, regarding interrogatories and requests for production (ECF Nos. 92, 93), and defendants' motion for terminating and monetary sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (ECF No. 102.) The parties timely filed their joint statements regarding the motions for protective order on November 20, 2017, (ECF Nos. 104, 105), and plaintiff filed an oppositio
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court are defendants' two motions for protective order, regarding interrogatories and requests for production (ECF Nos. 92, 93), and defendants' motion for terminating and monetary sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (ECF No. 102.) The parties timely filed their joint statements regarding the motions for protective order on November 20, 2017, (ECF Nos. 104, 105), and plaintiff filed an opposition..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before the court are defendants' two motions for protective order, regarding interrogatories and requests for production (ECF Nos. 92, 93), and defendants' motion for terminating and monetary sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (ECF No. 102.) The parties timely filed their joint statements regarding the motions for protective order on November 20, 2017, (ECF Nos. 104, 105), and plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motion for terminating and monetary sanctions on November 22, 2017. (ECF No. 107.) These motions came on regularly for hearing on November 30, 2017, at 10:00 am. James R. Kirby, II, appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and Mark E. Ellis and Theresa M. LaVoie appeared on behalf of defendants.
After considering the parties' joint statements, briefing, supporting documentation, and oral arguments, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motions for protective order (ECF Nos. 92, 93) are DENIED.
2. Defendant's motion for terminating and monetary sanctions (ECF No. 102) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's request that the court take judicial notice of declarations made by plaintiff in a probate matter in Stanislaus County Superior Court (ECF No. 107 at 11) is DENIED.
4. Within 60 days of this order:
a. Parties shall stipulate to an appropriate protective order to address defendants' privacy concerns raised in defendants' motions for protective order, after which, defendants SHALL RESPOND to plaintiff's discovery requests regarding defendants' net worth, and plaintiff shall respond to any outstanding discovery requests.
b. Plaintiff SHALL BE DEPOSED. Parties shall meet and confer, with input from plaintiff's medical providers, and determine how best to accommodate plaintiff's medical needs and defendants' right to discovery.
5. Parties are advised to meet and confer regarding any continuing discovery disputes. If issues persist, parties are encouraged to utilize the undersigned's informal discovery procedures, which can be found on the website for the Eastern District of California: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5046/.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
