Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02532/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02532-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Wrongful Death

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK

HANTAVIRUS LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENTS RELATES TO:

 ALL CASES

Case No. 14-md-02532-MMC (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING DECEMBER 29, 

2014 JOINT LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 79

This multidistrict litigation involves claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising 

from a hantavirus outbreak in Yosemite National Park during the summer of 2012. The parties to 

these actions have filed a joint discovery letter asking for the Court's assistance with resolving two 

issues: (1) the scheduling of an unspecified1number of depositions currently set for the week of 

January 12, 2015 and (2) an extension of the January 30, 2015 deadline to respond to the 

Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Defendants Delaware North Companies, Inc., Delaware North Companies Parks & 

Resorts, Inc., DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., and DNC Parks & Resorts Reservations, 

Inc. (collectively, the "DNC Defendants") state that on December 19, the Government "produced 

ESI containing 45,434 records, consisting of 282,281 pages." (Joint Ltr. at 3.) The Government 

 

1

The Court is unable to determine the number of depositions scheduled for that week. In one part 

of the joint letter, the DNC Defendants write that the "U.S. designated 3 witnesses." Joint Ltr. at 

1. In other paragraph, they write that the Government stated it would produce "ESI records from 

the directories of the four U.S. deponents." Id. at 2-3. The parties did not provide copies of the 

deposition notices at issue, though this Court's General Standing Order requires that parties do so. 

See General Standing Order ¶ 13 ("[T]he parties shall attach the propounded discovery and the 

applicable responses as exhibits to the joint discovery letter.").

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 81 Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

apparently represented that it would produce additional documents, which it expects to do by the 

end of January. (Id.) Despite this recent voluminous production, and the outstanding discovery, 

the Government has declined to reschedule the depositions, which are scheduled for the week of 

January 12, 2015. According to the DNC Defendants, the scheduled depositions relate to a 

number of topics relevant to the factual issues raised in the Government's motion to dismiss. (Id.

at 1.)

It is undisputed that the Government recently produced a substantial amount of ESI. (See 

Joint Ltr. at 3 ("On December 19, the U.S. produced ESI containing 45,434 records, consisting of 

282,281 pages."); see also id. at 5 ("Recently, the U.S. even produced 280,000 pages of 

electronically stored information (ESI) from the four witnesses pursuant to the parties' request.").) 

While the Government advances arguments about the appropriate scope of discovery at this stage 

in this litigation, it misses the point. Here, the Government has produced a substantial volume of 

material from its designated witnesses. The Government did not move for a protective order to 

excuse it from producing these materials. It produced them, and it is not persuasive to now argue 

that the propounding parties are not entitled to a fair opportunity to review the documents because 

the documents fall outside the scope of permissible discovery. That challenge could have been 

timely raised and would have potentially mooted the issues the Court must now resolve.

The Court also rejects the Government's argument that it "continues to incur the high costs 

and burdens of discovery over claims to which it has retained its immunity from suit." (Id. at 7.) 

Permitting the propounding parties to review the information the Government has produced will 

not increase costs or impose a burden for a simple reason—the Government has already produced 

it. Granting an appropriate extension, then, will only facilitate the outcome the Government 

claims it wants—a ruling on its motion that is made "on the merits and all of the relevant 

evidence." (Id.)

For the reasons set forth above, the depositions currently scheduled for the week of 

January 12, 2015 are to be taken off calendar. The Government shall produce any outstanding 

discovery by no later than January 30, 2015. All depositions shall be completed by no later than

March 13, 2015. The new deadline for responses to the Government's motion to dismiss is April 

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 81 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

24, 2015.2 The Government's reply shall be filed by no later than May 22, 2015. The presiding 

judge will set a new hearing date based on this revised briefing schedule by separate order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2

The order referring this matter provided that "[i]n connection with the instant administrative 

motion, the Magistrate Judge may, as necessary, revise the briefing schedule on the United States' 

Motion to Dismiss." Order, Dkt. No. 78 at 1.

01/07/2015

Case 3:14-md-02532-MMC Document 81 Filed 01/07/15 Page 3 of 3