Castillo v. Alere North America, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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, 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.”). 22 || Dated: August 1, 2023 = 2 Ky F A. 24 Hon. SteveB.Chu 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28