Morning Star Packing Company, et al v. SK Foods, et al, No. 2:2009cv00208 - Document 218 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/3/2014 RECOMMENDING that the 148 Status (Pre-Trial Scheduling) Order be modified, and the discovery be extended to 2/11/2015 for the limited purpose of resolving plaint iffs' 198 Motion to Compel and the government be provided until 1/30/2015 to submit an amicus brief addressing any legal impediments to disclosing any documents in its possession that are responsive to plaintiffs' discovery requests. Objections due within 7 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Donati, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Morning Star Packing Company, et al v. SK Foods, et al Doc. 218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 THE MORNING STAR PACKING COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 No. 2:09-cv-208-KJM-EFB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. S.K. FOODS, L.P., et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 On November 19, 2014, this matter was before the court for further hearing on plaintiffs’ 19 motion to compel (1) defendant Scott Salyer to respond to plaintiffs’ request for production of 20 documents and (2) Segal & Associates, counsel for defendant Salyer, to comply with a subpoena.1 21 ECF No. 198. Attorney James Kachmar appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; attorney Malcom Segal 22 appeared on behalf of defendant Salyer and Segal & Associates. Attorney Charles Jaeger 23 appeared on behalf of defendants Los Gatos Tomato Products and Stuart Woolf. 24 25 The request for production of documents served on defendant Salyer and the subpoena served on Segal & Associates seek the same information; documents exchanged by Salyer and the 26 27 28 1 Also before the court for further hearing was plaintiffs’ motion to allow additional depositions. ECF No. 207. That motion is denied as moot in a separate ordered filed concurrently with these findings and recommendations. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 government during the course of the criminal case United States v. Frederick Scott Salyer, 2:10- 2 cr-00061-TLN. One of defendant Salyer and Segal & Associates’ primary objections to 3 complying with plaintiffs’ discovery requests is that producing the documents would impose an 4 unreasonable burden and that the documents sought could more easily be obtained from the 5 government. After hearing arguments on the motions, the court continued the matter to 6 December 3, 2014, for further hearing and requested the amicus participation of the government. 7 See ECF No. 215. At the December 3, 2014 hearing, counsel noted above appeared in addition to 8 Assistant U.S Attorney Matthew Segal and Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 9 Division, Belinda Barnett who appeared on behalf of the government, a non-party to this civil 10 action. 11 The government indicated at the December 3 hearing that it is amendable to conducting a 12 search of its files in the criminal action against defendant Salyer to determine what documents it 13 possesses that would be responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. However, it requested that 14 the court provide it with an opportunity to brief whether there would be any legal impediments to 15 disclosing any documents. The government also represented that it is amendable to meeting and 16 conferring with plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the possibility of a stipulation for a disclosure order 17 authorizing disclosure of documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) to the 18 extent there are any responsive documents that constitute grand jury materials. Additionally, 19 counsel indicated that they will confer as to the need, if any, for a protective order as to the 20 parties’ use of the documents in this civil action. 21 However, the government explained that conducting the search of its records and drafting 22 a brief regarding disclosure of responsive documents would take several weeks, taking account of 23 the impending holidays and the review necessary. Given the willingness of the government, a 24 non-party to the instant action, to assist the parties and the court in the resolution of the instant 25 motion, the court finds it necessary to provide the government until the end of January 2015 to 26 conduct a search of its records and submit a brief in this action addressing any legal impediments 27 concerning the disclosure of documents in the government’s possession that are responsive to 28 plaintiffs’ discovery requests. 2 1 However, the deadline to complete all non-expert discovery is currently December 8, 2 2014, and the deadline to hear discovery disputes is currently January 16, 2015. ECF No. 181 at 3 2. Thus, allowing the government to file its amicus brief on January 30, 2015, will exceed the 4 deadline set in this case. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the discovery dispute 5 deadline be extended to February 11, 2015, for the limited purpose of resolving plaintiffs’ motion 6 to compel. 7 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. The June 21, 2013, Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (ECF No. 148) be modified, and 9 10 11 the above noted discovery deadlines be extended to February 11, 2015 for the limited purpose of resolving plaintiffs’ October 28, 2014 motion to compel. 2. The government be provided until January 30, 2015, to submit an amicus brief 12 addressing any legal impediments to disclosing any documents in its possession that are 13 responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within seven days after 16 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 17 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 19 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 20 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 DATED: December 3, 2014. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
