Castillo v. Alere North America, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the parties' joint report proposing a timeline for the production of discovery documents following a prior order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The court adopted the proposed production dates of August 21, 2023, for class contact information and August 31, 2023, for all other documents, while noting that an interlocutory appeal would trigger an automatic stay of discovery.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Adoption of the parties' proposed discovery production timeline“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ request to adopt the proposed production timeline.” | agree with court The court accepted the parties' joint proposal for a discovery schedule. In the context of a joint report where both parties agree the schedule is reasonable and necessary, and given the court's inherent authority to manage discovery under Rule 16, adopting the agreed-upon dates is a standard and appropriate exercise of discretion. The court also correctly noted the automatic stay provision under the recent Supreme Court decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, which governs the effect of an interlocutory appeal on district court proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural scheduling order based on a joint report. The court correctly applied the automatic stay rule from Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, which was decided just days prior to this order. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a stipulated scheduling matter. There are no gaps in the legal analysis because the parties agreed on the schedule, and the court's role was merely to approve it and note the procedural implications of a potential appeal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE CASTILLO, individually and Case No.: 21-CV-1519-RBM-SBC on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER FOLLOWING JOINT Plaintiff, 13 REPORT REGARDING v. SUGGESTED PRODUCTION DATE 14 FOR DISCOVERY RULINGS ALERE NORTH AMERICA, INC; 15 ALERE, INC.; ABBOTT 16 LABORATORIES, INC; ABBOTT RAPID Dx NORTH AMERICA, LLC; 17 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Report Regarding Suggested Production Date 21 for Discovery Rulings (“Joint Report”). (Doc. No. 65.) By and through their Joint Report, 22 the Parties fulfilled their obligation to propose a timeline for Defendants’ production of 23 certain documents to Plaintiff following presiding District Judge Ruth B. Montenegro’s 24 Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Doc. No. 65; see also Doc. 25 No. 59, November 2, 2022, Minute Order from then-presiding Magistrate Judge Andrew 26 S. Schopler Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Staying 27 Production Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.) In doing 28 1 the Parties “request that Defendants’ production date for the document and information 2 ||subject to [production] be set no sooner than (1) August 21, 2023, for class contact 3 ||information; and (2) August 31, 2023, [] for all other information and documents subject 4 ||to [production].” (Doc. No. 3:3-8.) The Parties aver they both believe the proposed 5 schedule to be “reasonable and necessary,” particularly as the documents and information 6 ||in question span a six-year time period and that production had been stayed for nearly nine 7 months while Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration remained pending. (/d., 3:8-13.) 8 Having reviewed and considered the Joint Report, the Court finds the Parties’ 9 || proposed production timeline of August 21, 2023, for class contact information and August 10 || 31, 2023, for all other outstanding discovery from Defendants to Plaintiff to be reasonable. 11 |} Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ request to adopt the proposed production 12 || timeline. To that end, in the event Defendants elect to file an interlocutory appeal of District 13 ||Judge Montenegro’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, 14 || Defendants shall do so within the time limits proscribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of 15 || Appellate Procedure. Should Defendants proceed with filing an appeal, an automatic stay 16 |/of all discovery proceedings, including the instant production efforts, shall take effect, 17 || consistent with the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2023, decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski. 18 || See Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 143 S. Ct. 1915, 1919 (2023) (“The sole question before this 19 ||Court is whether a district court must stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal 20 |/on arbitrability is ongoing. The answer is yes.”). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: August 1, 2023 = 2 Ky F A. 24 Hon. SteveB.Chu 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28