Opinion
3:12-cv-00344-RCJ-WGC
01-17-2013
KEVIN PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. C.R. BARD, INC., et al., Defendants.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: Peter Wetherall, Ramon Lopez and Troy Brenes COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): Richard North, Matthew Lerner and Jay Schuttert
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: Katie Lynn Ogden REPORTER: FTR COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: Peter Wetherall, Ramon Lopez and Troy Brenes COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): Richard North, Matthew Lerner and Jay Schuttert
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Case Management Conference
10:31 Court Convenes.
I. Preliminary Matters
The parties have filed the Joint Status Report under Seal. The court is not inclined to have the document remain under seal. The court directs that the parties re-file the joint status report in a fashion which it may be filed without the necessity of submitting under seal.
Therefore, plaintiff's Motion to Seal Dkt. #44 Joint Case Management Report and Attached Exhibits (Dkt. #43) is DENIED and shall be re-filed without the confidential documents and not under seal .
II. Discussion regarding Joint Status Report (Dkt. #44)
The court and parties address a multitude of discovery disputes that remain outstanding. After hearing argument from the parties, the court orders the following:
A. Privilege Logs
The parties inform the court that they have complied with the meet and confer standards with respect to the outstanding issue regarding privilege logs and requests that the issue(s) be briefed. The court finds that an appropriate approach to initiate briefing regarding this topic is for the parties to file a joint submission of the categories of documents with regard to the privilege log. Simultaneously, the joint submission should include statements from each party explaining their position with regard to the documents. The court believes this approach may guide defendants when filing the anticipated Motion for Protective Order.
The parties shall additionally provide the court with adequate representative sampling (no more than fifty (50) pages) of the documents, which shall be submitted for in camera review only. The sampling of documents should be the only portion of the joint submission that is presented to the court for in camera review and should be delivered to chambers. The joint submission shall be filed no later than Friday, February 15, 2013.
B. Format of Production of ESI
Mr. Brenes represents that, after multiple meet and confer with defendants, it appears that the parties remain in dispute regarding the format of production of ESI. Mr. Brenes and Mr. North indicate that the parties agree briefing is appropriate. The parties shall submit a joint brief with regard to this issue no later than Friday, February 8, 2013.
C. ESI Custodial Files
Mr. Lopez requests that this topic be addressed by the court today, while Mr. North disagrees and represents that this issue is appropriate for briefing. The court is not inclined and is in the opinion that this issue is premature for ruling. The court explains that it appears that this issue needs to be part of a meet and confer obligation once again. Should the parties not reach an agreement the court directs that they assume briefing the matter which shall have a joint submission deadline of Friday, February 15, 2013.
D. Search Methodologies
The court explains that this topic appears to be similar to that of the ESI Custodial Files. Again, the court is not inclined to rule on this issue and directs that the parties continue to attempt to resolve this issues. Should the parties not reach an agreement, the court directs that they assume briefing the matter which shall have a joint submission deadline of Friday, February 15, 2013.
III. Continued Case Management Conference Scheduled
The court schedules a Continued Case Management Conference for Tuesday, February 5, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. 11:33 a.m. Court Adjourns.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: ____________________
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk