Hardin

Hardin v. Mendocino Coast District Hospital

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 23, 20194:17-cv-05554California1,630 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 ELLEN HARDIN, Case No. 17-cv-05554-JST (TSH)

Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER (PUBLIC

v. REDACTED VERSION OF ECF NO. 237) MENDOCINO COAST DISTRICT HOSPITAL, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 186 10 Defendants. 11 Defendants have moved for reconsideration of a portion of the Court’s April 4, 2019 discovery order, ECF No. 106, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2), arguing that new material facts have emerged that provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its order barring them from using documents produced by Antelope Valley Hospital and Community Regional Medical Center – Plaintiff Ellen Hardin’s last two employers before she worked for Defendant Mendocino Coast District Hospital. They say the new facts are in two places: an April 29, 2019 settlement demand and Hardin’s June 21, 2019 deposition. The Court considers each in turn. Let’s be realistic about what a settlement demand is. It’s not a formal pleading that’s binding on a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.