Chacko

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBY CHACKO, No. 2:19-cv-1837 JAM DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT PLAN

NO. 3,

15 16 Defendant. 17 18 On November 6, 2020, this matter came before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 19 302(c)(1) for hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel and defendant’s motion for a protective 20 order. (ECF Nos. 49 & 52.) Attorney Michelle Roberts appeared via Zoom on behalf of plaintiff 21 and attorney Stacey Campbell appeared via Zoom on behalf of defendant. Oral argument was 22 heard and the motions were taken under submission. 23 The crux of the parties’ dispute concerns whether defendant has the contractual authority 24 to demand its claims administrator, Sedgwick, and its vendor, NMR, produce responsive 25 documents. Plaintiff argues that “[t]he current iteration of the Contract between AT&T and 26 Sedgwick contain . . . provisions which . . . demonstrate that Defendant does continue to control 27 documents and information…