ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

DKT NO. 98

DKT. NO. 86

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

This order addresses the parties' discovery dispute regarding the request for protective order by the Regents of the University of California ("Regents") concerning depositions sought by defendants St. Jude Medical and Boston Scientific. (Dkt. No. 98 in 16-cv-6210 YGR and Dkt. No. 86 in 16-cv-6266 YGR.) The Court has reviewed the parties' joint status statement filed April 27, 2018. (Dkt. No. 90.)

Despite having been provided an additional opportunity to present their positions, the Court finds the parties' submissions on the issue of proportionality lacking. Nevertheless, the Court ORDERS that discovery be provided as stated herein, based on the information presently before the Court, and taking into consideration: (i) the parties' submissions; (ii) the impeding discovery cutoff; (iii) the scope of the damages that plaintiff seeks; (iv) the scope of discovery presumptively allowed under the Federal Rules; and (v) the overlap between the two captioned cases and the ability to share discovery.

Defendants are allowed a total of seven (7) additional depositions beyond those already completed as of the date of this order. The depositions shall be no more than seven hours each, and shall be conducted jointly or divided between the two sets of defendants. The additional depositions shall be limited to no more four electrophysiologists across the 5 UC Medical Schools and the 11 teaching hospitals.

As to the document requests, the Regents shall provide documents within its custody and control as to the thirteen electrophysiologists identified by defendants. To the extent that the Regents asserts that the documents sought from those EPs are not within its custody and control, defendants may subpoena those electrophysiologists to obtain the documents, and the Regents is deemed to have waived its objections to doing so.

This Order is without prejudice to the defendants requesting authorization for additional depositions, should discovery demonstrate a justifiable basis for the request.

To the extent either party seeks an extension of the discovery cut-off, the Court denies the request absent more specific good cause for any such extension.

This terminates Docket No. 98 in 16-cv-6210 YGR and Docket No. 86 in 16-cv-6266 YGR.

IT IS SO ORDERED.