Filed: Apr. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos. 110, 111. WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Plaintiff seeks relief from the discovery Order of Magistrate Judge Kim overruling plaintiff's work-product and consulting expert privilege objections on the basis of waiver and requiring plaintiff to produce expert-generated information regarding tests of defendants' bedding that plaintiff cited to and relied on in his Seventh Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 108. Specifically, Judge Kim
Summary: ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos. 110, 111. WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Plaintiff seeks relief from the discovery Order of Magistrate Judge Kim overruling plaintiff's work-product and consulting expert privilege objections on the basis of waiver and requiring plaintiff to produce expert-generated information regarding tests of defendants' bedding that plaintiff cited to and relied on in his Seventh Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 108. Specifically, Judge Kim ..
More
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos. 110, 111.
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.
Plaintiff seeks relief from the discovery Order of Magistrate Judge Kim overruling plaintiff's work-product and consulting expert privilege objections on the basis of waiver and requiring plaintiff to produce expert-generated information regarding tests of defendants' bedding that plaintiff cited to and relied on in his Seventh Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 108. Specifically, Judge Kim ordered plaintiff to produce: the "actual tests and comments by the consulting expert(s), documents upon which the consulting expert(s) relied, documents which the consulting expert(s) created, and the bedding itself" for the products at issue in the suit. Id.
Having reviewed Judge Kim's Order, and the parties' briefing on the motion for relief, I DENY the motion for relief. Judge Kim's Order is not clearly erroneous and is consistent with case law from this and other districts, including Zeiger et al v. WellPet LLC et al., No. C 17-4056 WHO, Dkt. No. 72 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2018), a decision I filed yesterday on the same issue raised here. See also Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., LLC, 314 F.R.D. 85, 89-90 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Worley v. Avanquest N. Am. Inc., No. C 12-04391 WHO (LB), 2013 WL MD-2250-LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 5897351, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012).1
Plaintiff shall produce the discovery ordered by Judge Kim on or before April 25, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
