Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01099/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01099-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBORAH HENSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1099 FCD KJM

vs.

LASSEN COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

 Defendants’ and plaintiff’s discovery motions came on regularly for hearing

June 6, 2007. Yosef Peretz appeared for plaintiff. Martha Springer appeared for defendants. 

Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of

counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel electronic discovery is granted in part. Counsel

shall consult with the electronic forensic expert and determine whether documents searched with

the terms “Debbie,” “Deborah,” or “Henson” can be identified as documents that would be

protected under California Welfare & Institutions Code § 827. If the documents can be so

identified, then the electronic discovery may proceed. If the documents cannot be so identified,

the parties are directed to contact courtroom deputy Matt Caspar no later than June 8, 2007 and

the matter will be calendared for further hearing on June 13, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. In the event

Case 2:05-cv-01099-FCD-KJM Document 169 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 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

2

there is further hearing on this matter, no later than June 8, 2007, the parties shall file with the

court only the following: one list each of the documents identified with and without a search of

the terms “Debbie,” “Deborah,” or “Henson.” 

2. Defendants’ motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff shall submit to further

deposition of thirteen hours. No later than June 11, 2007, defendants shall provide to plaintiff a

revised list of specified documents requiring authentication. Plaintiff shall review all documents

identified in the authentication list prior to the deposition and shall respond to questions

regarding e-mails exchanged between her and Mr. Snitkin. No later than June 11, 2007, plaintiff

shall provide any documents supporting plaintiff’s claim she had permission to take the

computer identified in requests for production of documents, nos. 3 and 4, and shall provide a

list of persons to whom plaintiff claims defamatory comments were published. 

3. The parties are reminded that discovery disputes should first be resolved

through good faith meeting and conferring. L.R. 37-251(b). If no resolution can be reached, the

parties may bring the matter before this court. In this case, in the event of any future discovery

disputes, those disputes shall be summarized jointly by the parties in a letter brief not exceeding

four pages. The joint letter brief must attest that, prior to filing the request for relief, counsel met

and conferred personally or by phone, and must concisely summarize those remaining issues

counsel were unable to resolve. The letter brief may cite to limited and specific legal authority

only for resolution of the dispositive issues. The letter brief may not be accompanied by exhibits

or affidavits; any excerpt of disputed discovery material must be set out verbatim in the letter. 

After receipt of the letter brief, the court will then advise the parties concerning whether

additional briefing or a telephonic conference will be necessary.

DATED: June 7, 2007.

006

henson3.oah

Case 2:05-cv-01099-FCD-KJM Document 169 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 2