Opinion
SECOND DISCOVERY ORDER
BERNARD ZIMMERMAN, Magistrate Judge.
I held a telephonic conference on June 4, 2007, to discuss the discovery dispute outlined in plaintiffs' Motion for Order Shortening Time (Docket No. 34) to hear a previously filed Motion to Compel (Docket No. 24). We also discussed defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 41) and Motion For Order Shortening Time (Docket No. 43). All parties were present and represented by counsel. For the reasons articulated on the record, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The model stipulated protective order, which can be found on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ under the "Forms" link, is adopted and will govern discovery in this case going forward;
2. The parties will electronically file a signed copy of the stipulated protective order by 12:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 6, 2007;
3. Defendant will produce, pursuant to the protective order, all documents and information responsive to the contested discovery requests by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 6, 2007;
4. Because defendant stated during the telephonic conference that its motion for a protective order is now moot and that it will not seek further resolution thereof, the Court considers that motion and the motion to shorten time to have been withdrawn by defendant;
5. Plaintiff's motion to shorten time is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file a supplement to their motion to compel by Wednesday, June 13, 2007; Defendant's opposition, if any, will be filed by Wednesday, June 20, 2007; Plaintiffs' reply will be filed by Monday, June 25, 2007. The Court will notice a hearing if necessary.
The parties are cautioned to comply carefully with the requirements of the protective order, governing Ninth Circuit law and Civil Local Rule 79 in designating information as confidential and seeking to have it sealed.