Name of Assigned Judge Young B. Kim Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
Status hearing held and continued to June 12, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. Parties identified outstanding written discovery issues. The court heard oral arguments and ruled on these issues as detailed below. At the next status hearing, parties to report on the status of oral discovery. Parties will also be expected to provide the court with a schedule to complete all fact depositions.
O[For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
The following is a summation of the outstanding written discovery issues raised during today's status hearing and the court's rulings on these issues:
Issues Raised by Plaintiffs
1. Plaintiffs requested to have Defendant provide its National Cable Activity Log ("NCAL") in Excel. Defendant responded that it has produced the NCAL log in its native format and to provide the information in Excel would be unduly costly and burdensome. Pursuant to the requirements of the court's standing order on ESI, parties are to have their respective ESI representatives confer concerning the feasibility and the burden of having this log produced in Excel by May 18, 2012.
2. Plaintiffs requested to have permission to personally inspect Defendant's mechanized time reporting system and to videotape the inspection. This request is denied. Plaintiff is permitted to depose someone familiar with the time reporting system and its functions. Plaintiff may also request that the designated deponent appear for the deposition with a copy of the system and provide a demonstration during his/her deposition in response to questions. This deposition must be scheduled by no later than June 8, 2012.
3. Plaintiffs requested to have Defendant provide the start and end time, understood by Defendant as the shift start and end time, for the named Plaintiffs. Defendant has agreed to provide this information. Defendant is ordered to supplement its document production to include this information by June 8, 2012.
4. Plaintiffs objected to Keith Harn's verification of Defendant's answers to Plaintiffs' interrogatories. Objection is overruled. The verification itself serves as a stipulation, and Defendant agreed on the record, that the interrogatory answers are binding on Defendant.
5. Plaintiffs requested to have Defendant supplement its response to Request for Production of Document # 31. Based on the agreement reached by the parties in open court, Plaintiffs are ordered to provide Defendant with a letter identifying the garage sites for which they are seeking computer terminal information by May 18, 2012, and Defendant is ordered to respond to this letter with the number of terminals available at each subject garage by June 8, 2012.
6. Plaintiffs requested to have Defendant supplement its response to Request for Production of Document ## 2, 17-19. Plaintiffs' objections over Defendant's answers are overruled. ...