Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

 (Recommended Discovery Order No. 23, hereafter, “RDO23,” Docket Item No. 485;

Recommended Discovery Order No. 24, hereafter, “RDO24,” Docket Item No. 488.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Darla Padgett, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Brian Loventhal, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 04-03946 JW 

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’

OBJECTION AND ADOPTING

DISCOVERY ORDERS TWENTYTHREE AND TWENTY-FOUR

The parties are currently working through the Special Master to disclose to Plaintiffs certain

documents found on Defendants’ hard drives. The Special Master has been given authority to

establish a procedure for identification and disclosure of privileged documents for the Court’s

review. (See Docket Item No. 306.)

The Special Master recently issued Discovery Orders Twenty-Three and Twenty-Four. Both

orders involve the Bates numbering of Defendants’ electronic documents.1

 The Special Master

ordered Plaintiffs’ expert to add Bates numbers to those document. Defendants were ordered to pay

the cost of this procedure. (See Docket Item Nos. 485, 488.)

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 491 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 (Defendants’ Objections and Request or District Court to Reconsider Special Master’s

Discovery Order Nos. 23 and 24, hereafter, “Objection,” Docket Item No. 490.)

2

Before the Court is Defendants’ Objection to Discovery Orders Twenty-Three and TwentyFour.2

 Defendants contend that they have already Bates numbered the documents and that

renumbering is unnecessary. (Objection at 1.) The Special Master considered Defendants’

contention, but concluded that Bates stamping by Plaintiffs’ expert “will be the surest method to

avoid any confusion in the identification of documentary evidence and, in addition, should facilitate

presentation of documentary evidence at time of trial using the court’s systems.” (RDO24 at 2.) 

Since the issue of Bates numbering is properly within the Special Master’s discretion and nothing in

Defendants’ objection suggests an abuse of that discretion, the Court adopts Discovery Orders

Twenty-Three and Twenty-Four.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objection.

Dated: March 3, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 491 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Darla Kaye Padgett Actiontkr@aol.com

Joseph C. Howard jhoward@hrmrlaw.com

Thomas H R Denver tdenver@mediationmasters.com

Todd Holton Master tmaster@hrmrlaw.com

Dated: March 3, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 491 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3