Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01790/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01790-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

BRIAN DAWE d/b/a FLAT IRON 

MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1790 LKK EFB

vs.

CORRECTIONS USA, et al, 

ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERSUIT

 /

This case was before the undersigned on February 27, 2008, for hearing on Brian Dawe’s

motion to compel production of documents, and Correction USA’s related motion for a

protective order, and to seal the deposition of non-party Steve Fournier. Daniel Baxter appeared

on behalf of Brian Dawe; Maureen VanderMay appeared on behalf of Gary Harkins; and, Phillip

Mastagni and James Carr appeared on behalf of Corrections USA, California Correctional Peace

Officer’s Association, James Baiardi and Donald Baumann (the “CUSA defendants”). 

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, all motions were denied without

prejudice due to the parties’ failure to comply with Local Rule 37-251(b)’s meet and confer

requirements. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The parties have been unable to agree on a

Case 2:07-cv-01790-LKK-EFB Document 95 Filed 04/01/08 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

single item of discovery and have asked the court to interpret the relevance of nearly 200

document requests and to define the scope of all claims and defenses in the pending lawsuits. 

The parties were ordered at the hearing to meet and confer on their numerous discovery

disputes. The parties were cautioned that this court will not allow the litigation to be conducted

in secret, and that it is very unlikely to find that every document in this litigation warrants the

protection of a blanket protective order. Further, the parties were cautioned that they will need

to explain the relevance of requests for information that, on their face, appear to be far afield of

the actual claims and defenses in the pending lawsuits. 

The parties were ordered to submit a single joint statement for the motion to compel and

the related motion for a protective order that such discovery not be had or, at the very least,

limited. The parties were ordered to submit the joint statement by April 1, 2008. To the extent

the CUSA defendants claim a privilege or protection with regard to any of the disputed

document requests, they are ordered to submit a privilege log that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(5). The log that they submitted in connection with the February 27, 2008, hearing did not

comply with that rule as it failed to describe withheld documents with sufficient specificity to

enable the other parties, or the court, to assess the validity of the claimed privileges. 

Finally, with regard to the CUSA defendants’ motion to seal the deposition transcript of

non-party Steve Fournier, the court acknowledges receipt of the deposition transcript. The court

will take under submission the request to seal and order further briefing as appropriate. 

All pending motions are re-calendared for hearing on April 16, 2008. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 1, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01790-LKK-EFB Document 95 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 2