Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00701/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00701-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW PETERSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THOMSON INT’L, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

(Doc. 35)

The Court convened a mid-discovery status conference on February 8, 2023, following its 

review of a joint status report filed by the parties in advance of the conference. (Docs. 34, 35). 

Lindsay Lien Rinholen appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Helen Chen appeared on behalf of 

Defendant. The Court and the parties reviewed the status of discovery and addressed several 

ongoing discovery-related issues. The Court reiterated its reluctance to adjust discovery 

deadlines and directed the parties to review the Scheduling Order, which provides that the case 

management dates are “firm” and will not be adjusted absent stipulations accompanied by 

affidavits that establish good cause. (Doc. 4 at p. 7).

This Order addresses and requires action by the parties with respect to three issues 

discussed during the conference:

Protective Order: in a related, consolidated action involving different plaintiffs, the Court 

entered a stipulated protective order that the Plaintiffs and Defendant here agree applies in that 

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 36 Filed 02/08/23 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

case to many of the same documents that likely are to be discovered in this case. Angelo et al. v. 

Thomson Int’l, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-1609-JLT-CDB (Doc. 30). However, Plaintiffs in this case have 

raised objections about the scope of the draft protective order under discussion by the parties, and 

accordingly, no protective order yet has been entered. In particular, Plaintiffs seek to require

“confidential” markings to be removed from certain categories of documents so that they are 

excluded from the provisions of any protective order. The parties represented during the 

conference that they are working collaboratively towards an agreeable protective order. 

Accordingly, the COURT ORDERS the parties to file on or before February 24, 2023, either (1) 

a stipulated protective order that at least permits production of confidential documents for which 

there is no dispute as to the applicable level of confidentiality, or (2) a joint request for Court 

resolution of the disputed issues in which the parties set forth their respective positions with 

supporting authority.

Disclosure Authorizations: Counsel for Plaintiffs has returned to Defendant several, but 

not all, of the disclosure authorization forms provided by Defendant. Accordingly, the COURT 

ORDERS Plaintiffs on or before February 15, 2023, to complete, sign and return to Defendant all 

remaining, non-objectionable disclosure authorization forms.

Cost-Sharing for Subpoenaed Documents: Defendant has withheld production to Plaintiffs 

of certain documents it obtained through service of subpoenas until Plaintiffs agree to costsharing for the expenses incurred in connection with the subpoenas. Accordingly, the COURT 

ORDERS the parties on or before February 24, 2023, to either (1) resolve the dispute regarding 

cost-sharing to the mutual satisfaction of each party, or (2) file a joint request for Court resolution 

of the disputed issues in which the parties set forth their respective positions with supporting 

authority.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 36 Filed 02/08/23 Page 2 of 2