Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04100/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04100-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GIACALONE ELECTRICAL SERVICES,

INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

WESCO DISTRIBUTION, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 03-4100 JW (PVT)

INTERIM ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’

RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL

SUNSET ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND

ASCENT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY TO

COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DUCES

TECUM

On June 29, 2005, Defendants filed a Renewed Motion to Compel Sunset Electrical Supply,

Inc. (“Sunset”) and Ascent Electrical Supply, Inc. (“Ascent”) to comply with subpoenas duces

tecum.

1

 However, Defendants have not addressed each category of documents requested separately

as required by this court’s order of May 19, 2005. Thus, it is not clear to the court which documents

Defendants contend are responsive to which subpoena categories. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall file a revised motion, separately discussing

each disputed category of documents requested in the subpoenas. For each such category of

documents requested, Defendants shall: 1) quote the category as it is set forth in the pertinent

subpoena; 2) quote Sunset’s and/or Ascent’s objection; and 3) explain both the basis for Defendants’

Case 5:03-cv-04100-JW Document 130 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER, page 2

contention that they are entitled to the requested discovery, and how the proportionality and other

requirements of FRCivP 26(b)(2) are satisfied. See, CIVIL L.R. 37-2.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the revised motion shall give at least 14 days notice of the

hearing (which shall be set for a Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.). Opposition papers shall be filed at least 7

calendar days before the hearing. No reply papers shall be filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ counsel shall promptly serve a copy of this

order, both by fax and first class mail, on counsel for Sunset and Ascent.

In order to facilitate any continued meet and confer efforts, the court notes that any

compensation to Sunset and Ascent for the “appropriate compensation for the cost of employee

time” referenced in this court’s order of May 19, 2005 should be based on a reasonable wage a small

company would normally be willing to pay an average clerical worker to sort and copy documents. 

This is not intended to provide Sunset and Ascent with profit, but rather to defray the expense

incurred to comply with the subpoenas.

Dated: 6/30/05

 /s/ Patricia V. Trumbull 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04100-JW Document 130 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2