Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03166/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03166-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

HENRY SCHEIN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JENNIFER COOK,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03166-JST 

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: ECF No. 26

This is a further order regarding the discovery dispute pending between Plaintiff and third 

party Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. See ECF Nos. 26, 27. 

The parties are ordered to appear in Courtroom 9 on July 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. for a 

hearing regarding this dispute. The Court’s goal will be to determine a schedule for the 

production of the documents Plaintiff has requested from Patterson; to determine whether the 

documents can be produced in stages, instead of all at once; and to ensure that any discovery is 

proportional to both the needs of the Plaintiff for full discovery and the expense that such 

discovery might entail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (requiring district courts to consider “the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 

access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving 

the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit”). Each side should be prepared to answer detailed questions concerning these 

considerations.

If the parties submit a stipulated proposed schedule, the Court will adopt it. If the parties 

submit competing schedules, the Court will endeavor to choose, in all respects, the single proposal 

it concludes is most reasonable. See Michael Carrell & Richard Bales, Considering Final Offer 

Case 3:16-cv-03166-JST Document 30 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Arbitration to Resolve Public Sector Impasses in Times of Concession Bargaining, 28 Ohio St. J. 

on Disp. Resol. 1, 20 (2013) (“In baseball arbitration ... the parties ... have every incentive to make 

a reasonable proposal to the arbitrator because the arbitrator will choose the more reasonable 

offer”); see also Sage Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc., No. 12-CV-6441-JST, 2014 WL 

1379282, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014) (same).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03166-JST Document 30 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 2