Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK SATCHELL et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 FEDEX EXPRESS,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-2659 SI

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

On July 27, 2006, defendant filed a letter brief seeking a protective order regarding plaintiffs’

document requests. (Docket No. 428). By letter dated July 31, 2006, plaintiffs respond that the parties

are still engaged in the meet and confer process, and that plaintiffs are in the midst of voluntarily

narrowing their requests. 

Although the Court is mindful of defendant’s concerns, as expressed in its August 1, 2006 letter,

that a prompt resolution of the dispute is necessarily due to the impending discovery cut-off, the Court

concludes that the parties’ dispute is not ripe for decision. The Court DENIES defendant’s request

without prejudice to renewal if the parties continue to have a dispute after plaintiffs have further

narrowed their requests and the parties have engaged, as expeditiously as possible, in a further meet and

confer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 435 Filed 08/07/06 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

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 435 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 2