Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES

HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND,

et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ADVANCE BUILDING

MAINTENANCE,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-3078 CW (BZ)

FOURTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Having considered plaintiffs’ motion to compel production

of documents and deposition pursuant to subpoenas served on

non-party Steven J. Vallen and for sanctions, the opposition

papers filed by defendant and Mr. Vallen, and plaintiffs’

reply, I see no need for further argument. Accordingly, the

October 31, 2007 hearing date is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to document request

no’s. 1(a), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 1(h), 1(i), 1(j), and

///

///

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 199 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 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

1 Insofar as Mr. Vallen and defendant challenge

plaintiffs’ motion on the grounds that its filing did not

comport the process outlined in my Initial Discovery Order,

the involvement of a non-party and the particular

circumstances of this case weigh against strict application of

those terms of my Order. 

2

1(s).1

2. In the interest of expediting discovery, plaintiffs’

motion is GRANTED as to document request no. 1(l) limited to

cash disbursements over $1,000.

3. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to document request

no’s. 1(g), 1(m), 1(n), 1(o), 1(p), 1(q) and 1(r), on the

bases of overbreadth and irrelevancy.

4. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to document request

no’s. 1(b) and 1(t) on the basis of irrelevancy.

5. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of tax

returns is DENIED without prejudice to renewal should they

determine a need after reviewing the documents produced

pursuant to this Order.

6. Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ requests call for the

production of privileged information, Mr. Vallen is expected

to abide by the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 45(d)(2)(A). 

7. Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ requests call for the

production of confidential information, Mr. Vallen and

defendant are expected to comply with the protective order in

place in this matter.

8. Mr. Vallen will produce all responsive documents by

Monday, October 22, 2007. 

9. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED with respect to the

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 199 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 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

3

deposition of Mr. Vallen. The parties will meet and confer in

good faith to determine an appropriate time and place for

deposition.

10. Plaintiffs’, defendant’s and Mr. Vallen’s motions for

sanctions are DENIED. See Civil Local Rule 7-8.

11. The parties’ handling of discovery has thus far been

antithetical to the goal of securing a “just, speedy, and

inexpensive determination of [this] action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

1. The parties are admonished that if their behavior does not

improve, the Court will consider the appointment of a

discovery referee. 

Dated: October 3, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\CA.SERVICE EMPLOYEES\DISC.ORDER.4.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 199 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3