Abubakar v. County of Solano

Full title: MINERVA ABUBAKAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SOLANO, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 10, 2008

No. CIV S-06-2268 LKK EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-2268 LKK EFB.

October 10, 2008

ORDER

EDMUND BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge

On July 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions and to compel further responses to their Request for Production (Set Two), served upon defendant on January 29, 2008. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 and 37. The court initially heard the motion on September 17, 2008. After consideration of the parties' respective positions, the court directed plaintiffs to further refine their production requests, directed defendant to provide a privilege log pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5) for all responsive documents which it sought to withhold pursuant to the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, ordered the parties to further meet and confer, and scheduled a further hearing for October 8, 2008. The parties were ordered to file a supplemental joint statement one week prior to the hearing.

The joint statement filed October 1, 2008 revealed continued difficulties in counsels' communications, but demonstrated that plaintiffs had refined their production requests to "six categories" of documents, and that defendant had produced some responsive documents and filed an amended response.

For the reasons stated on the record at the continued hearing on October 8, 2008, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant, on or before November 17, 2008, shall: (1) complete its search and produce all documents responsive to plaintiffs' Request for Production (Set Two), as refined by plaintiffs' "six categories" of responsive documents; (2) provide a privilege log describing any responsive documents withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine; and (3) certify in writing that all responsive documents have been produced. In addition, defendant shall: (4) file a Second Amended Response to the subject production request.

Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents pursuant to their Request for Production (Set Two) (Dckt. No. 102), is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions (Dckt. No. 102) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.