BIG LAGOON RANCHERIA v. California

I. INTRODUCTION

The Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Against Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents and Any Further Discovery Related to Plaintiffs Claim for Bad Faith Negotiations of a Tribal-State Gaming Compact (the “Motion”) and all further discovery were referred to the undersigned. See Docket No. 34. A hearing was held on March 5, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. at which counsel for both parties appeared. The Court concludes that it would be inappropriate for this Court to prevent discovery and thereby limit the materials available to the parties’ proposals and negotiations, judicially-noticeable information, and information on the State’s affirmative defenses. There is no binding authority requiring the Court to limit discovery in the manner proposed by the State of California (“the State”) here, and the District Court has not at this juncture decided that its review of the questions in this case is so limited. For the reasons stated at the hearing in this matter and as set forth more fully below, the Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The History of the Dispute Between the Parties

The Tribe and the State have been engaged in compact negotiations since…