Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED 

PARENTS ASSOCIATION, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-3471 KJM AC 

ORDER 

 At the August 9, 2016 discovery conference, the court addressed inter alia plaintiffs’ 

request to meet privately with the Special Master to discuss technical problems that plaintiffs’ 

counsel has experienced in attempting to review discovery. See ECF No. 235. Defendants 

objected to the ex parte nature of the proposed meeting, and plaintiffs’ counsel spontaneously 

expressed willingness to include defense counsel. The request for a private meeting thus 

appeared moot, and no ruling on defendants’ objection was necessary. 

 The Special Master has now notified the court that in his professional judgment, a brief 

private meeting with plaintiffs’ counsel and her e-Discovery consultant will best enable him to 

understand the technical difficulties plaintiffs say they are experiencing because of the format of 

the deliverables they are receiving. The proposed private meeting will be for the limited purpose 

of helping the Special Master to understand these problems, prior to a joint session to discuss 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 248 Filed 09/12/16 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 

27 

28 

2

issues related to the format of defendants’ e-Discovery production and plaintiffs’ review of that 

discovery. The private meeting will not discuss the specifics of actual searches, nor involve any 

suggestions for future searches. 

Neither the Order appointing the Special Master, ECF No. 116, nor the subsequent Order 

revising the scope of his duties, ECF No. 170, expressly limit the circumstances in which the 

Special Master may meet with one party outside the presence of the other. It is the expectation of 

the undersigned, however, that any such meetings will be extremely rare, and will take place only 

with notice to the other party and with prior court approval. 

The court finds that in the present circumstances, the proposed private meeting will enable 

the Special Master to most effectively assist the parties in resolving their e-Discovery problems. 

Given the limited purpose and scope of the meeting, there will be no prejudice to defendants. In 

sum, the court finds good cause to approve the Special Master’s request to meet with plaintiff’s 

counsel and her e-Discovery consultant prior to the upcoming joint meeting of the parties with the 

Special Master. Defendant’s objection is noted and overruled. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 12, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 248 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 2