Castillo v. Alere North America, Inc.

Opinion

GEORGE CASTILLO, individually and Case No.: 21-CV-1519-RBM-SBC on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER FOLLOWING JOINT Plaintiff, v. SUGGESTED PRODUCTION DATE FOR DISCOVERY RULINGS ALERE NORTH AMERICA, INC; ALERE, INC.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC; ABBOTT RAPID Dx NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Report Regarding Suggested Production Date for Discovery Rulings (“Joint Report”). (Doc. No. 65.) By and through their Joint Report, the Parties fulfilled their obligation to propose a timeline for Defendants’ production of certain documents to Plaintiff following presiding District Judge Ruth B. Montenegro’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Doc. No. 65; see also Doc. No. 59, November 2, 2022, Minute Order from then-presiding Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Schopler Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Staying Production Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.) In doing the Parties “request that Defendants’ production date for the document and information subject to [production] be set no sooner than (1) August 21, 2023, for class contact information; and (2) August 31, 2023, [] for all other information and documents subject to [production].” (Doc. No. 3:3-8.) The Parties aver they both believe the proposed schedule to be “reasonable and necessary,” particularly as the documents and information in question span a six-year time period and that production had been stayed for nearly nine months while Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration remained pending. (/d., 3:8-13.) Having reviewed and considered the Joint Report, the Court finds the Parties’ proposed production timeline of August 21, 2023, for class contact information and August 31, 2023, for all other outstanding discovery from Defendants to Plaintiff to be reasonable. } Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ request to adopt the proposed production timeline. To that end, in the event Defendants elect to file an interlocutory appeal of District Judge Montenegro’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, Defendants shall do so within the time limits proscribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Should Defendants proceed with filing an appeal, an automatic stay /of all discovery proceedings, including the instant production efforts, shall take effect, consistent with the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2023, decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski. See Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 143 S. Ct. 1915, 1919 (2023) (“The sole question before this Court is whether a district court must stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal /on arbitrability is ongoing. The answer is yes.”). Dated: August 1, 2023 = Ky F A. Hon. SteveB.Chu United States Magistrate Judge