Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471-22/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Education
Defendant
Winston Krone
Special Master
Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED 

PARENTS ASSOCIATION, an 

unincorporated association, and 

CONCERNED PARENTS 

ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated 

association, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION and DOES 1 through 5, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

In an order filed July 2, 2015, the court appointed Winston Krone as Special 

Master in this action “for the limited purpose of facilitating the parties’ development of an 

electronic discovery protocol.” ECF No. 116 at 2. The court concluded that the Special Master’s 

compensation for that task should be paid by the California Department of Education (CDE). In 

a minute order filed October 16, 2015, the court lifted a stay on discovery, authorized the parties 

to notice and file discovery motions, and authorized the assigned Magistrate Judge to “seek all 

appropriate assistance” from the Special Master in resolution of those motions and extended his 

appointment accordingly. ECF No. 124. Finally, in an order filed November 3, 2015, the court 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 149 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 4
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

approved the electronic discovery protocol and directed CDE to meet and confer with the Special 

Master “to confirm whether the CDE has backups of the CASEMIS database”, “on the production 

of email files, file servers, and network shares of custodians marked ‘priority’ by plaintiffs on 

September 14, 2015”, and on “the use of deduplication procedures to avoid duplicate review for 

attorney-client privilege.” ECF No. 127 at 2. The order also provided that “[u]ntil the Special 

Master determines the plaintiff has established a secure hosting environment and the court 

receives and approves his certification to that effect, the CDE will not be required to produce 

student data subject to protection under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA).” ECF No. 127 at 3. 

 The Special Master forwarded to the court an invoice of his fees incurred between August 

4, 2015 and October 18, 2015. After receiving comments from the parties concerning the invoice, 

by order filed January 14, 2016, the court directed CDE to pay the full amount of the invoice 

within 14 days. ECF No. 147. The court has now received a second invoice from Special Master 

Krone for services rendered between November 10, 2015 and December 22, 2015. To date, the 

court has not addressed the procedure for compensation of the Special Master for the tasks 

required by the November 3, 2015 order and authorized by the October 16, 2105 minute order. 

That is the purpose of this order. 

 The standards relevant to fixing the compensation of a Special Master are fully set forth in 

the court’s July 2, 2015 order, ECF No. 116 at 2-5, and need not be repeated here. After 

consideration of those standards and relevant comments of the parties submitted in response to 

the court’s December 1, 2015 order, ECF No. 132, the court has determined that the Special 

Master’s compensation should be allocated as follows: 

 For the tasks required by the court’s November 3, 2015 order, plaintiffs shall bear the 

costs of time spent by the Special Master determining whether plaintiffs have established a secure 

hosting environment, and CDE shall bear the costs of time spent by the Special Master on the 

other tasks required by that order. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 149 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 4
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

 The costs for time spent, if any, by the Special Master on tasks requested by the assigned 

Magistrate Judge in accordance with the court’s October 16, 2015 minute order shall be allocated 

using the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) and (C) for payment 

of expenses of a discovery motion. Specifically, any costs for time spent by the Special Master 

on tasks that arise as the result of a court order granting a discovery motion shall be borne by the 

party or party’s attorney whose conduct required the court order or, as appropriate, apportioned 

between the parties if the exceptions in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii) or the 

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (37)(a)(5)(C) apply to a particular order. 

 Good cause appearing, the court will direct the Special Master to resubmit to this court his 

January 9, 2016 invoice using the foregoing criteria to identify which party, in his estimation, 

should bear the costs of each item contained in the invoice. The Special Master shall serve a copy 

of the January 9, 2016 invoice, as modified, on the parties to this action; service may be by email. The parties shall have fourteen days to file objections with the Magistrate Judge to the 

proposed allocation of costs contained in the modified invoice. Each party shall bear its own 

costs of such objections, if any. 

Going forward, the Special Master shall include the same identification information in any 

invoice submitted to the court for payment in this matter. To the extent the Special Master seeks 

compensation for time spent on tasks requested by the assigned Magistrate Judge, the 

apportionment of costs contained in his invoice shall be viewed as a recommendation that may be 

adopted or modified by the Magistrate Judge as appropriate. 

The matter of payment of all future invoices, with the exception of the invoice for services 

rendered between November 10, 2015 and December 22, 2015, is hereby referred to the assigned 

Magistrate Judge. The Special Master shall submit all future invoices to the Magistrate Judge and 

serve a copy on all parties. The parties shall have fourteen days to object to the proposed 

allocation of costs contained in any invoice. Each party shall bear its own costs of such 

objections, if any. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 149 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that payment of the Special Master commencing with his 

invoice dated January 9, 2016 and going forward shall be made in accordance with the provisions 

of this order. 

DATED: January 22, 2016. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 149 Filed 01/25/16 Page 4 of 4