From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roe v. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 15, 2011
Case No. C 03-04035 CRB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. C 03-04035 CRB

11-15-2011

JOSE ROE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS F. WHITE, et al., Defendants.

JAMES M. WAGSTAFFE (95535) MARIA RADWICK (253780) KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP Guardian Ad Litem for JOSE ROE I, JOSE ROE II, JOSE ROE III, AND JOSE ROE IV


JAMES M. WAGSTAFFE (95535)

MARIA RADWICK (253780)

KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP

Guardian Ad Litem for

JOSE ROE I, JOSE ROE II, JOSE ROE III, AND JOSE

ROE IV

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO VACATE JUDGMENT, FOR

DISCOVERY AND TO STAY PAYMENTS

Defendant's Motion for Order Authorizing Post-Judgment Discovery and Motion to Stay Payments on Judgment Pending Ruling on Motions for Discovery and to Vacate Judgment came before the Court on October 14, 2011. Having reviewed the papers submitted in connection with the motions and considered the arguments of counsel, the Court hereby grants the following limited discovery and refers this discovery matter to Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins for the limited purposes specified below.

1. Defendant, at his expense, may retain a forensic specialist and arrange through the appropriate legal means for that specialist to search the contents of the two computers belonging to Plaintiffs' former counsel, David Replogle, that were seized by the Palm Springs Police Department in conjunction with a special master appointed by the court. Defendant's counsel shall give advance notice to Ms. Nanci Clarence and to Mr. Replogle and his counsel of this process and order.
2. The search shall be targeted to identify documents that Replogle received directly or indirectly that were (1) prepared by or for Defendant Thomas White, Defendant's counsel and/or investigator(s), (2) belonging to Defendant White, Defendant's counsel and/or investigator(s), and (3) documents and emails reflecting communications by Defendant, Defendant's counsel and/or investigator(s). Defendant's counsel shall include all of his attorneys, whether or not representing him as a party in civil and criminal cases and extradition matters.
3. Defendant, at his expense, shall arrange for the documents identified as responsive to the search to be designated as CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order in this case, and for copies of the documents first to be provided to Magistrate Judge Cousins, Plaintiffs' counsel, and the Guardian Ad Litem.
4. Plaintiffs' counsel and the Guardian Ad Litem shall preliminarily review the documents and notify Defendant's counsel if they object to the disclosure to Defendant's counsel of any documents and the basis for that objection. Any
objection(s) shall be communicated to Defendant's counsel within twenty calendar days or such further time as agreed by the parties or ordered by the Court. If a dispute arises with respect to any such objection, Defendant shall file a motion in this Court to resolve the dispute.
5. After the completion of this preliminary review by Plaintiffs' counsel and the Guardian Ad Litem, they will provide to Defendant's counsel for his review a copy of the documents not objected to and those for which the Court has overruled an objection and ordered production.
6. At the request of Defendant, after conclusion of the discovery of Replogle's computers, the Court will address whether to grant discovery of the paper files related to matters Replogle handled as an attorney against Defendant that are currently in the possession of the California State Bar.

Defendant's Motion to Stay Payments on Judgment Pending Ruling on Motions for Discovery and to Vacate Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The Court further VACATES the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Vacate Orders, Settlement Agreement and Judgment, without prejudice to Defendant's right to renotice the motion after the discovery is completed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Charles R. Breyer


Summaries of

Roe v. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 15, 2011
Case No. C 03-04035 CRB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)
Case details for

Roe v. White

Case Details

Full title:JOSE ROE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS F. WHITE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 15, 2011

Citations

Case No. C 03-04035 CRB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)