Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06482/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06482-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREG BRAUN, CASE NO. CV-F-02-6482 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVEORDERREPERSONSMOST

vs. KNOWLEDGEABLE (Doc. 256)

AGRI-SYSTEMS, 

Defendant.

 /

On February 28, 2006, plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time to move

for a protective order for depositions set by Defendant Agri-Systems for March 10, 2006. The

depositions were noticed forthe personsmost knowledgeable of plaintiff's two document retention firms,

O'Connell and Document Technologies, Inc. These firms handled the David Vandiver photographs.

Mr. Vandiver is the former Coast Grain project manager for the subject project. By order on March 1,

2006, the Court offered to resolve the substance of the motion by informal conference call, to which the

parties agreed. On March 6, 2006, the Court conducted a telephonic hearing regarding the motion for

a protective order. On March 7, 2006, defendant filed an opposition.

The motion for a protective order stems from this Court’ February 2, 2006 order regarding

defendant’s accusations of wrongdoing by counsel as it pertains to Mr. Vandiver’s photographs. In the

Court’s February 2, 2006 order, the Court allowed defendant to retain an expert to inspect the

photograph discs to see if they had been tampered with or not. The order states:

Case 1:02-cv-06482-AWI -LJO Document 278 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 3
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

“Defense counsel has accused plaintiff’s counsel of intentional wrongful

conduct, a serious accusation by an officer of the Court. The Court will

permit defendant to examine the discs containing the photographs, by

way of appropriate expert only, to determine whether the discs have been

tampered. The process of arranging for the inspection of the discs must

be in progress within 10 days and accomplished within 40 days. This

Court is to be notified, in writing, of the result. The Court wishes notice

to enable it to determine the presence or absence of merit of counsel’s

serious accusation.” (Doc. 252) (Emphasis added.)

In response to the Court’s order, Agri-systems served subpoena duces tecums on O’Connell and on

Document Technologies for depositions of the persons most knowledgeable and requested production

of documents. Agri-Systems argues that the depositions are necessary to authenticate the discs.

On March 6, 2006, most of the argument by defendant at the time of the telephonic conference

was “discovery as usual.” For instance, defendant argued that Mr. Vandiver testified that he took

photographs until he left in January 2002. He testified he loaded all of his photos on 200 to 300 floppy

discs and on cd-roms which he left at Coast Grain. No photos have been produced for dates after

September 2001 and the 200-300 floppy discs that have not been produced.

The issue before the Court is narrow and does not include “discovery as usual.” The discovery

cut-off expired on January 9, 2006. At Mr. Vandiver’s deposition on March 15, 2005, defendant learned

of the photos they wanted and by August 8, 2005, the second Vandiver deposition, defendant confirmed

they wanted the photographs.

The issue before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for a protective order for the subpoena duces

tecums to the persons most knowledgeable at O’Connell and Document Technologies, Inc.

At the March 6, 2006 telephonic hearing, plaintiff’s counsel represented that he had turned over

all photographs to defendants, which is the same statement he made at the prior discovery hearing on

January 31, 2006. At that prior hearing and in response to a question of the Court, plaintiff’s counsel

said that plaintiff had provided all photographs to defendants. This statement turned out to be inaccurate

because subsequently additional photographs were provided to defendants. Accordingly, in that there

appears to be a failure in diligence of search, the Court addresses this issue. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:02-cv-06482-AWI -LJO Document 278 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to provide one declaration detailing exactly what was done to

conduct a diligent search for the discs/photographs, including the efforts by all plaintiff’s counsel and

co-counsel and including a search for the number of discs indicated by Mr. Vandiver. Should a

subsequent discovery issue arise related to the diligence of the search, the Court will deal with it

separately.

The motion for protective order is GRANTED.

Request for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06482-AWI -LJO Document 278 Filed 03/10/06 Page 3 of 3