Hardin

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ELLEN HARDIN, Case No. 17-cv-05554-JST (TSH)

7 Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER (PUBLIC

8 v. REDACTED VERSION OF ECF NO. 237) 9 MENDOCINO COAST DISTRICT HOSPITAL, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 186 10 Defendants. 11 12 Defendants have moved for reconsideration of a portion of the Court’s April 4, 2019 13 discovery order, ECF No. 106, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2), arguing that new material 14 facts have emerged that provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its order barring them from 15 using documents produced by Antelope Valley Hospital and Community Regional Medical Center 16 – Plaintiff Ellen Hardin’s last two employers before she worked for Defendant Mendocino Coast 17 District Hospital. They say the new facts are in two places: an April 29, 2019 settlement demand 18 and Hardin’s June 21, 2019 deposition. The Court considers each in turn. 19 Let’s be realistic about what a settlement demand is. It’s not a formal pleading that’s 20 binding on a…