[PROPOSED] ORDER re PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGE LOG AND DISCOVERY DISPUTES

NANDOR J. VADAS, Magistrate Judge.

Two motions filed by Defendant Comcast Cable Communication Management, LLC ("Comcast") (erroneously sued as Comcast Corporation and Comcast of Contra Costa, Inc.) to compel discovery were heard on October 4, 2016, before the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas. The first motion pertained to section III of Defendant's discovery brief of July 25, 2016, seeking production of a privilege log, with regard to which this Order shall apply to all the Canaday related cases. The second motion concerned Defendant's discovery letter brief of September 16, 2016, which is decided by this Order in its entirety and applies to the following actions: Davis v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-04177-JSW, Paez v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-0-4181-JSW, Cook v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-04182-JSW, and Huffman v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-04183-JSW.

Patrick Terry, Esq., and Arlo Uriarte, Esq., appeared on behalf of all Plaintiffs. Stephen Taeusch, Esq. and Fred Alvarez, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Comcast. After considering the parties' positions, and counsel's arguments, the Court hereby Orders as follows:

With respect to Roman Numeral III, of the Defendant's motion filed July 25, 2016, 2016, seeking to compel a privilege log, the Court Orders that, with respect to all the Canaday related cases now pending in the Northern District of California, Defendant's motion to compel a privilege log is denied. The Court denies Defendant's motion without prejudice to Defendant's renewing the motion in the event that Plaintiffs assert the relevance of notice of decertification in subsequent motions or Judge White, in subsequent rulings, concludes that notice of decertification is relevant to determining the tolling period.

With respect to Defendant's motion filed on September 16, 2016, the court orders that with respect to issue 1, Plaintiffs Cayenne, Souza and Agundez shall respond, which may include any objections, to outstanding discovery, or determine whether to seek dismissal of their actions, by October 14, 2016. The Court further orders that, with respect to issue 2 regarding RFP No. 27, Plaintiffs in Huffman, Cook, Paez and Davis are to provide responses, which may include objections, by October 14th. The court further orders that, with respect to issue 3, Defendant's request for amended responses is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.