April 18, 2011
THOMAS GAETANO DEVITO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Peggy A. Leen United States Magistrate Judge
(Mot to Compel - Dkt. #397) (Cross-Mot for Prot Ord - Dkt. #426)
The court conducted a hearing on April 14, 2011, on the parties' numerous discovery motions. The court heard Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #397), and Cross-Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #426), and eleven other substantive discovery motions and related requests for relief.
Guillot, George Paul and Robert McKirgan appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and Samuel Lionel, Daniel Mayeda, David Korzenik, Maximiliano Couvillier, III, and Eric Swanis appeared on
of the Defendants. This order disposes of the following moving and responsive papers: #397 Motion by Defendants Des McAnuff, Robert Gaudio, and Marshall Brickman to Compel
Discovery from Plaintiff; #425 Response to Motion by Defendants Des McAnuff, Robert Gaudio, and Marshall
Brickman to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff (Doc. 397); #426 Cross-Motion for Protective Order; #427 Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Marshall Brickman's First Set of Interrogatories; #433 Reply by Defendants Des McAnuff, Robert Gaudio, and Marshall Brickman re: Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff; and #444 Reply re: Cross Motion for Protective Order.
Defendants' motion to compel initially sought to compel a Response to Request for Production No. 15, or in the alternative, to provide Answers to Interrogatory No.s 13 and 17. After the motion was filed, the Defendants withdrew their request to compel answers to these interrogatories as Plaintiff had Supplemented her responses and answered them. However, the motion to compel still seeks an order other discovery.
Having reviewed and considered the moving and responsive papers and the arguments of
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff (Dkt. #397) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #426) is GRANTED. The court finds that Plaintiff has met her burden of establishing that Cindy Ceen is her representative whose assistance is used to facilitate the rendition of legal services in this case, and that Plaintiff and Ceen have treated all communications to and from counsel in this matter as confidential and privileged, and that they have not disclosed these confidential communications to any non-parties or third parties. Plaintiff is relieved of the obligation to provide a privilege document log for privileged and confidential communications to and from litigation counsel in this matter, including pre-litigation communications, consistent with the court's prior order.
3. Any request for relief not specifically addressed in this order is DENIED.
© 1992-2014 VersusLaw Inc.