Filed: Jun. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RE: DISCOVERY LETTERS AND RESETTING HEARING DONNA M. RYU , Magistrate Judge . On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Yolanda Banks-Reed, no longer represented by counsel, 1 filed a unilateral discovery letter challenging Defendants' designation of material as "Attorney's Eyes Only" ("AEO") under the protective order and requesting that the court compel production of all AEO designated material directly to the pro se Plaintiffs. [Docket No. 151.] The court orde
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RE: DISCOVERY LETTERS AND RESETTING HEARING DONNA M. RYU , Magistrate Judge . On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Yolanda Banks-Reed, no longer represented by counsel, 1 filed a unilateral discovery letter challenging Defendants' designation of material as "Attorney's Eyes Only" ("AEO") under the protective order and requesting that the court compel production of all AEO designated material directly to the pro se Plaintiffs. [Docket No. 151.] The court order..
More
ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RE: DISCOVERY LETTERS AND RESETTING HEARING
DONNA M. RYU, Magistrate Judge.
On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Yolanda Banks-Reed, no longer represented by counsel,1 filed a unilateral discovery letter challenging Defendants' designation of material as "Attorney's Eyes Only" ("AEO") under the protective order and requesting that the court compel production of all AEO designated material directly to the pro se Plaintiffs. [Docket No. 151.] The court ordered Defendants to file a response identifying the AEO designated material and explaining the basis for withholding the materials from the Plaintiffs. [Docket No. 155 at 5.]
In response, Defendants filed a letter explaining that "plaintiffs are not attorneys and are not officers of the court subject to the same scrutiny and regulations." Defs.' Resp. [Docket No. 160] at 2. However, Defendants remained vague about their concerns and did not tether them to the actual content of the AEO designated documents. Further, Defendants attempted to re-assert that certain privileges and protections apply to the AEO designated material, even though the court has already ruled on this issue. Sept. 15, 2015 Order [Docket No. 104]; Defs.' AEO Log [Docket No. 160-1]; Aug. 13, 2015 Discovery Letter [Docket No. 98]; Defs.' Privilege Log [Docket No. 98-7 & 98-8].
Therefore, by June 24, 2016, the Defendants shall file a letter, of no more than three pages, enumerating their specific concerns regarding the disclosure of the AEO designated documents to the pro se Plaintiffs. They shall not incorporate by reference arguments made in any other documents.
Plaintiffs may file two-page response to Defendants' letter by July 1, 2016.
The hearing previously noticed for June 30, 2016 is continued to July 7, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612. For courtroom number and floor information, please check the Court's on-line calendar at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov (click "Calendars — Judges' Weekly Calendars" link, then select Judge Ryu's calendar).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
