Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03418/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03418-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID A. BLOOM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., and

J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-03418 WHA

ORDER AMENDING

SCHEDULE FOLLOWING

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

On June 25, 2010, a hearing was held in this matter regarding a discovery dispute outlined

in plaintiff David Bloom’s June 16 letter to the court (Dkt. No. 30) regarding the requisite scope

of defendants’ production of emails. At the hearing, defendants were ordered to search for and

produce the following:

1. All non-privileged emails sent or received by Carlos

Hernandez, Chris Harvey and Mark Melio that reference

plaintiff David Bloom from August 1, 2005, through

December 31, 2008. In conducting this search, defendants

must use the terms, “David Bloom,” “Dave Bloom,” and any

other terms reasonably calculated to capture references to

plaintiff such as “Dave” and “San Francisco,” or “Dave”

and “TECM”).

2. Relevant non-privileged emails sent or received by Mark

Melio, Erica Ellenbogen, Erica Denmark, Matthew Zames,

Jeffrey Bosland, Michael Maloney and David Bloom, which

contain the words “age,” “old,” “young,” and/or

“discriminate” (with all root expanders). In conducting this

search, defendants should combine the terms “age,” “old,”

“young,” and/or “discriminate” (with all root expanders)

with terms reasonably calculated to narrow the search to

Case 3:09-cv-03418-WHA Document 40 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

capture only those emails which refer to the Tax Exempt

Capital Markets Group (“TECM”) and/or San Francisco.

Defendants were also ordered to respond to plaintiff’s Special Interrogatory No. 18 by

identifying any civil action in which a plaintiff alleged a claim of age discrimination against

defendants since January 1, 2004, limited to plaintiffs who filed state actions and who are or were

members of the Investment Banking Group in San Francisco, California and/or who were

members of TECM anywhere in the United States.

Defendants were ordered to produce all the foregoing discovery no later than July 16,

2010. At the June 25 hearing, the Court stated that if defendants failed to meet this deadline, “I’ll

consider giving an extension of the discovery cutoff” (June 25 Tr. at 26).

The parties now have submitted a notice stating that defendants in fact did fail to meet the

July 16 deadline and stipulating to extend certain deadlines in the case management order (Dkt.

No. 22). This stipulation is GRANTED IN PART as follows:

1. Defendants shall complete their production of emails by AUGUST 6, 2010.

2. The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be completed by SEPTEMBER

9, 2010.

3. The last date for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of full

expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2) as to any issue on which a party has the

burden of proof (“opening reports”) shall be SEPTEMBER 9, 2010.

All other deadlines in the case management order (Dkt. No. 22) shall be unchanged. Good

cause has not been shown to move the deadline to file dispositive motions of September 30, 2010,

or the trial date of December 6, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-03418-WHA Document 40 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2