Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00592/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00592-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-0559 MCE KJM

vs.

ARIZONA ELECTRIC POWER 

COOPERATIVE, et al. ORDER

Defendants.

 /

and related action / No. CIV S-06-0592 MCE KJM

 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct discovery came on regularly for hearing

May 24, 2006. Russell Cohen and Cecilia Chan appeared for plaintiff PG&E. Robert Mockler

appeared for plaintiff SDG&E. Peter McAllen appeared for defendant Grant County. Upon

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

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiffs are granted leave to conduct limited discovery. Plaintiffs may propound

the proposed first set of requests for production of documents (Exhibit 3 to Cohen Decl.). 

Defendant Grant has stipulated that documents produced in the FERC proceedings may be used

in this litigation and has agreed to produce by June 5, 2006 the documents as set forth in the joint

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 96 Filed 05/26/06 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

1

 Grant’s position that no discovery has yet been propounded and thus no order

compelling production can be granted is well taken. However, given the briefing schedule on

defendant Grant’s motion to dismiss and the full briefing on the instant discovery dispute, the

court has construed the motion for leave to conduct discovery as including a motion for order

shortening time on a motion to compel. Any objections by defendant Grant to producing

documents as described in this order shall be filed within five days of the order’s filing.

2

discovery statement filed May 22, 2006 (docket no. 74).

In responding to request for production, no. 1,1 defendant Grant need not separate

responsive documents by the state of origin of the purchaser but may produce documents

pertaining to sales of wholesale electric energy as they are maintained in the normal course of

business. Any documents produced in response to request for production, no. 1, shall be used

solely for purposes of this litigation and are subject to attorneys’ eyes only review based on this

order.

DATED: May 25, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

pge.oah 

Case 2:06-cv-00592-MCE -KJM Document 96 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 2