Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03166/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03166-2/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 EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

Re: ECF No. 21

The parties have submitted a joint stipulated expedited discovery plan in this trade secrets 

case. ECF No. 21. One evident purpose of the agreement is to allow the parties quickly to obtain 

the information they need to evaluate whether the case can be settled in the near term. See id. at 1 

(“The expedited discovery is preliminary. It shall not prejudice the parties’ rights to conduct more 

fulsome discovery in the normal course should this case not resolve.”) The Court adopts the 

parties’ proposed stipulation as its order. See id. at 21-1 to 21-2. 

In their stipulation, the parties identify a dispute regarding Defendant’s deposition. 

Plaintiff seeks an order allowing it to conduct an additional session of that deposition “during 

regular discovery, should the case not resolve and that become necessary.” Id. at 2. Defendant 

asks that the Court prohibit Plaintiff in any subsequent session of her deposition from revisiting 

issues addressed in the first session. Id. at 3.

The Court will permit a later session of Plaintiff’s deposition if the case does not resolve. 

The Court will not now preclude Plaintiff at a later session of Defendant’s deposition from 

revisiting issues raised in the first session. Because discovery has not begun, it is not possible to 

know at this stage what information might later come to light as discovery progresses. The parties 

have done a commendable job of identifying the triage discovery they need to conduct settlement 

Case 3:16-cv-03166-JST Document 22 Filed 06/29/16 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

negotiations. Not surprisingly, that includes Defendant’s deposition. It is not possible for the 

parties to know, or the Court to determine, at this point whether more comprehensive discovery 

will reveal the need to revisit topics from the first session of Defendant’s deposition. If necessary, 

the parties can ask the Court to make that determination later on a fuller record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03166-JST Document 22 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2