Wilson v. Conair Corporation
Filing
87
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY SURESOURCE TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS AND VACATING 12/9/2015 HEARING. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/4/2015. (Hernandez, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
THIRD PARTY SURESOURCE TO
PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS
AND VACATING DECEMBER 9, 2015
HEARING
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
CONAIR CORPORATION,
15
Defendant.
(ECF No. 79, 85, 86)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel non-party SureSource to
produce documents responsive to a subpoena duces tecum. The Court, having reviewed the
record, finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g).
Accordingly, the previously scheduled hearing set on December 9, 2015 will be vacated and the
parties will not be required to appear at that time.
I.
23
BACKGROUND
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff Delia Wilson purchased a Conair Instant Heat 1½” Curling Iron in early 2010.
(Compl. ¶ 9.) Less than a month after it was purchased, the curling iron malfunctioned and
would not turn on. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff contacted Conair’s Customer Service Department
and received a replacement curling iron. (Compl. ¶ 13.) On February 12, 2014, the replacement
28
1
1 curling iron malfunctioned, and the power cord began to crackle and emit sparks. (Compl. ¶ 14.)
2 A flash of sparks caused burns on Plaintiff’s face and chest. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff received a
3 corneal abrasion in her eye. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that the curling iron failed at the
4 point where the curling iron’s power cord meets the stress relief. (Compl. ¶ 16.)
Plaintiff filed a class action complaint on June 11, 2014, against Defendant Conair
5
6 Corporation (“Defendant”) and raises three causes of action: 1) violation of the Consumers Legal
7 Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et seq., 2) violation of the Unfair Competition Law,
8 California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and 3) breach of implied warranty.
9 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant manufactures a variety of curling irons, straightening irons, and
10 curling brushes. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendant’s styling irons use a power cord connected to the iron
11 via a “stress relief.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant expressly and impliedly
12 represent that their styling irons are well-designed and safe to use. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff
13 alleges that she, and others similarly situated, purchased Defendant’s styling irons based upon
14 those representations regarding their safety and suffered injury from using the styling irons.
15 (Compl. ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that its styling irons were
16
17 defective. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant received complaints about similar
18 incidents with the power cord from consumers as early as 2012. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff further
19 states that Defendant failed to warn consumers about the defects in its styling irons. (Compl. ¶
20 24.)
On December 4, 2014, a scheduling order issued in this action setting forth pretrial
21
22 deadlines. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed a motion to compel which was granted in part and
23 denied in part on April 30, 2015. (ECF No. 46.) On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff served a subpoena
24 duces tecum on non-party SureSource LLC seeking production of documents. (ECF No. 85 at
25 54.1)
On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel Defendants to produce
26
27
1
All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the
28 CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.
2
1 documents which was denied on August 17, 2015. (ECF Nos. 51, 58.) Plaintiff filed a motion
2 for reconsideration by the district judge of the denial of the motion to compel which was denied
3 on September 16, 2015. (ECF Nos. 63, 70.)
On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an action in the United States Court for the District
4
5 of Connecticut seeking to compel non-party SureSource to comply with the subpoena duces
6 tecum. (ECF No. 85.) On November 13, 2015, the District of Connecticut transferred the
7 motion to compel to this Court. (ECF No. 85 at 4-5.)
8
II.
9
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to
10
11 command a nonparty to “produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or
12 tangible things in that person’s possession, custody, or control. . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
13 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). It is well settled that the scope of discovery under a subpoena is the same as the
14 scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) and 34. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Kirk’s Tire &
15 Auto Service Center, 211 F.R.D. 648, 662 (D. Kan. 2003) (quoting Advisory Committee Note to
16 the 1970 Amendment of Rule 45(d)(1) that the amendments “make it clear that the scope of
17 discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and the other discovery
18 rules.”). Rule 34(a) provides that a party may serve a request that is within the scope of Rule 26.
At the time this motion was filed, Rule 26 provided that “parties may obtain discovery
19
20 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . Relevant
21 information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to
22 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy is broadly
23 defined for the purposes of discovery, but it does have “ultimate and necessary boundaries.”
24 Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citations omitted).
25
2
As of December 1, 2015, Rule 26 provides “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
26 is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of
the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the
27 parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible
28 in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
3
1
While discovery should not be unnecessarily restricted, discovery is more limited to
2 protect third parties from harassment, inconvenience, or disclosure of confidential documents.
3 Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co., Inc., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980). In
4 deciding discovery disputes, courts must be careful not to deprive the party of discovery that is
5 reasonably necessary to their case. Dart Industries Co., Inc., 649 F.2d at 680. “Thus, a court
6 determining the propriety of a subpoena balances the relevance of the discovery sought, the
7 requesting party’s need, and the potential hardship to the party subject to the subpoena.”
8 Gonzales, 234 F.R.D. at 680.
9
III.
10
DISCUSSION
11
In Plaintiff’s current motion to compel she seeks discovery for forty five models of
12 styling irons that she alleges contain the same allegedly defective power cord. (ECF No. 85 at
13 14-.) Non-party SureSource objects on the grounds that Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad, seek
14 irrelevant information, and burden an unrelated non-party to this action. (ECF No. 85 at 8315 101.)
16
“Prior to certification of a class action, discovery is generally limited and in the discretion
17 of the court.” Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454, 459 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Generally, it is
18 the plaintiff’s burden to make a “prima facie showing that the class actions requirements of
19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied or that discovery is likely to produce
20 substantiation of the class allegations.” Del Campo, 236 F.R.D. at 459 (quoting Tracy v. Dean
21 Witter Reynolds, 185 F.R.D. 303, 304 (D.Co.1998). Especially when the material is in the
22 possession of the defendant, the court should allow the plaintiff enough discovery to obtain
23 evidence as to whether a class action is maintainable. Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d
24 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977).
The court should consider “the need for discovery, the time
25 required, and the probability of discovery providing necessary factual information” in exercising
26 its discretion to allow or prohibit discovery. Doninger, 564 F.2d at 1313.
27
The Court has already held that Plaintiff was entitled to receive discovery on whether
28 other individuals experienced similar failure in the forty-five styling irons with a similar power
4
1 cord and stress relief, but that Plaintiff was not entitled to additional discovery on the forty-five
2 styling irons at this time. (ECF No. 46 at 9.) Further, the Court has found that Plaintiff’s request
3 to conduct testing on these forty-five models is premature at the pre-class certification stage of
4 the litigation. (ECF No. 58 at 6.)
5
In deciding the requests to compel production here, the Court considers that while
6 counsel for SureSource is the same counsel for Defendant in this action, SureSource is a non7 party to this action and therefore discovery is more limited to protect the third party from
8 harassment, inconvenience, or disclosure of confidential documents. Dart Industries Co., Inc..,
9 649 F.2d at 649. Finally, while the Court finds that many of the Requests for Production address
10 the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and are beyond the scope of what the Court would find to be pre11 class certification discovery, where SureSource has agreed to produce a response such
12 production shall be ordered.
13
1.
14
Request for Production No. 1 seeks:
15
16
17
18
19
Request for Production No. 1
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show what information YOU capture about
purchasers of CONAIR PRODUCTS through www.conair-store.com.
including, for example, names, addresses, emails, phone numbers,
transaction dates, method of payments, PRODUCTS purchased, and prices
paid.
Defendant’s objection states:
23
This Request is vague, ambiguous and uncertain regarding what type of
documents are sought by the phrase “YOU capture about purchasers.” It
is unclear what specific categories of documents are being sought by this
part of the Request. The Request is also overbroad and seeks irrelevant
information in its use of the term “CONAIR PRODUCTS” since it seeks
information beyond the model CD87 curling iron. Additionally, this
Request is overbroad because it is not limited to consumers who
purchased products in the State of California. Finally, this Request is
overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable time frame.
24
Plaintiff argues that this information is necessary to show that the class is ascertainable.
20
21
22
25 Plaintiff states that the parties agreed that SureSource could respond to the request by declaration
26 and limit the response to California. SureSource indicates that it will provide information
27 sufficient to show what data is captured by SureSource regarding purchasers of products.
28
SureSource shall produce a declaration stating the information that is captured
5
1 through the website www.conair-store.com.
2
2.
3
Request for Production No. 2 seeks:
4
DOCUMENTS IDENTIFYING for each PRODUCT purchased through
www.conair-store.com, the customer’s name, address, email, phone
number, transaction date, method of payment, PRODUCT purchased, and
price paid.
5
6
7
Request for Production No. 2
Defendant’s objection states:
10
The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the
term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87
curling iron. This Request violates third party privacy rights.
Additionally, this, Request is overbroad because it is not limited to
consumers who purchased products in the State of California. Finally, this
Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable time frame.
11
Since this litigation is at the pre-class certification stage, the Court finds that merits
8
9
12 discovery is premature. During meet and confer sessions the parties agreed that this information
13 would not be produced until after a class has been certified and a protective order is in place.
14 Therefore, SureSource is not required to provide responsive documents to this request at
15 this time.
16
3.
17
Request for Production No. 3 seeks:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Request for Production Nos. 3 and 4
DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the average retail price of each
PRODUCT sold through www.conair-store.com.
Request for Production No. 4 seeks:
DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the average wholesale price of
each PRODUCT sold through www.conair-store.com.
Defendant’s objection to both requests states:
The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the
term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87
curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not
limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California.
Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable
time frame.
27
Plaintiff argues that this information is necessary to demonstrate the existence of a class
28
6
1 wide method of awarding relief that is consistent with her theory of liability. The parties have
2 agreed that SureSource may provide a declaration limited to model CD87 and California
3 purchasers. Plaintiff moves for an order compelling production of a declaration that states the
4 average retail and wholesale price for all forty-five models of styling irons sold in California for
5 January 1, 2005 through the present.
6
SureSource additionally objects on the ground that Plaintiff has provided no basis for
7 which the average wholesale price is relevant to any claim for damages. Plaintiff replies that
8 equitable disgorgement of profits may be awarded for the alleged illegal conduct.
While
9 Plaintiff seeks information on the forty-five models of styling irons, there has been no class
10 certification in this action. The information on all forty five of these models may be relevant
11 once a class is certified, however at this time the parties are to be conducting discovery relevant
12 to class certification.
While some merits discovery may be relevant to class certification,
13 Plaintiff is not entitled to conduct merits discovery on all forty-five models of styling irons until
14 after a class is certified and the scope of the claims is established. Unless otherwise specified in
15 this order, the Court finds that it would be unduly burdensome to require the non-party to
16 produce responsive information for all forty-five models of styling irons prior to a class being
17 certified in this action.
18
SureSource agrees to produce a declaration containing the average retail price for the
19 model CD87 sold in California, but argues that the time period requested is overbroad since the
20 statute of limitations in this action is four years. Additionally, SureSource states that sales
21 information is not available beyond 2010.
22
The Court finds that the request for retail and wholesale price information from 2005 is
23 overbroad and burdensome. Plaintiff contends that this information is relevant to a disgorgement
24 of profits remedy, yet the longest statute of limitations in this action is four years and Plaintiff is
25 seeking ten years of information. Further, SureSource contends that it does not have information
26 prior to 2010. The responding party cannot be required to produce information that is not in its
27 possession. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the wholesale prices of the forty-five styling irons
28 sold through www.conair-store.com is denied without prejudice to be raised during the
7
1 merits phase of the action. SureSource is not required to provide a response to Request for
2 Production No. 4 at this time. SureSource shall produce a declaration stating the average
3 retail price for the model CD87 sold in California for the period of January 1, 2010
4 through the present.
5
4.
6
Request for Production No. 5 seeks:
7
DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the number of units of each
PRODUCT sold through www.conair-store.com, broken down by month
and State.
8
9
Defendant’s Objection states:
10
The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the
term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87
curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not
limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California.
Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable
time frame.
11
12
13
14
Request for Production No. 5
Plaintiff argues that this information is also necessary prior to class certification to
15 demonstrate the existence of a class wide method of awarding relief. The Court finds that this
16 request is overbroad as it seeks information on all forty-five models of styling irons sold from
17 2005 through the present and did not limit production to the location of sale. Further, this
18 request goes to the merits of the claims and is beyond the scope of class certification discovery.
19 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to compel production to Request for Production No. 5 is
20 DENIED.
21
5.
22
Request for Production No. 6 seeks:
23
24
Request for Production Nos. 6 and 7
All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, YOU received
from CONAIR CONCERNING promoting, advertising, and marketing the
PRODUCTS.
25
Request for Production No. 7 seeks:
26
27
28
Exemplars of sales materials, promotional materials, and advertisements
CONCERNING PRODUCTS sold through www.conair-store.com.
Defendant’s objection for both requests state:
8
1
The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the
term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87
curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not
limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California.
Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable
time frame.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff contends that this information is necessary to show that the advertising for all
forty-five models failed to warn consumers of the defect in the power cord. However, the Court
finds these requests to be beyond the scope of pre-class certification discovery and is related to
the merits of the action.
Defendant has agreed to produce responsive documents related to the CD87 and CD12
from 2010 to the present. Therefore, Defendant shall produce documents responsive to
Request for Production Nos. 6 and 7 for the CD87 and CD12 styling irons for the time
period from January 1, 2010 to the present.
6.
Request for Production Nos. 8, 10, 11
Request for Production No. 8 seeks:
15
16
All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, CONCERNING
complaints, inquiries, or reports of PROBLEMS with PRODUCTS sold
through www.conairstore.com.
17
18
19
20
21
Request for Production No. 10 seeks:
All DOCUMENTS, including, but no limited to, any reports,
investigations, studies, analysis, or testing relating to PROBLEMS with
the PRODUCTS sold through www.conair-store.com.
Request for Production No. 11 seeks:
22
23
24
All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, relating to
PROBLEMS with PRODUCTS sold through www.conair-store.com.
including, but not limited to between YOU and CONAIR.
Defendant’s objection to these requests state:
25
26
27
28
The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the
term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87
curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not
limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California.
Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable
time frame.
9
1
2
Plaintiff contends that this information is needed to show that the problem with the
3 styling iron was not unique to her styling iron. The Court has previously found that:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a styling iron that failed to turn on after a
month and the replacement styling iron failed where the power cord met the stress
relief. Plaintiff alleges that other consumers have experienced the same failure of
the power cord. The parties have identified forty-five styling irons that have the
same power cord and stress relief as the model that injured Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s
allegations are sufficient to establish typicality only for those claims where an
individual experienced a similar failure of the power cord. Plaintiff has not made
a prima facie case for any malfunction of styling irons manufactured by
Defendant.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a prima facie case to be
allowed discovery to determine if other individuals have experienced similar
failure in those forty-five models with the similar power cord and stress relief.
Therefore, Defendants shall be ordered to supplement their responses to Request
for Production No. 18 for all forty-five models where the complaint is a failure of
the power cord. If ambiguity exists as to the reasons for the complaint, Defendant
shall err on the side of caution and produce such documents.
13 (ECF No. 46 at 9:1-13.)
14
Similarly, SureSource shall be required to provide documents responsive to Request for
15 Production No. 8 regarding all forty-five models where the complaint is a failure of the power
16 cord. However, Requests No. 10 and 11 are beyond the scope of the discovery found to be
17 appropriate at the pre-class certification stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, SureSource
18 shall produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 8 regarding all forty19 five models where the complaint is a failure of the power cord. No production is required
20 for Request for Production No. 10 and 11.
21
7.
22
Request for Production No. 9 seeks:
23
24
25
26
27
28
Request for Production No. 9
All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, CONCERNING
customer returns, exchanges of, or refunds for PRODUCTS sold through
www.conair-store.com.
Defendant’s objection states:
The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the
term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87
curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not
limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California.
Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable
10
time frame.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Plaintiff contends that this information is also necessary to demonstrate the existence of a
class wide method of awarding relief. Plaintiff seeks a declaration identifying the number of
returns or exchanges for the model CD87 from June 2010 through the present. Defendant has
agreed to produce such a declaration.
SureSource shall produce a declaration responsive to Request for Production No. 9
identifying the number of returns or exchanges for the model CD87 from June 2010
through the present.
8.
Request for Production No. 12
Request for Production No. 12 seeks:
11
12
13
All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, CONCERNING a
recall or the possibility of a recall of any of the PRODUCTS sold through
www.conair-store.com.
Defendant’s objection states:
14
17
The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the
term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87
curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not
limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California.
Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable
time frame.
18
Plaintiff contends that SureSource has agreed to produce responsive documents relating
15
16
19 to CD87 and CD12, but that recall documents regarding all forty-five models must be produced.
20 SureSource argues that information on the other models is overbroad and irrelevant as the
21 information sought is not limited to the subject matter of this litigation, a defective power cord.
22
Plaintiff’s request for production is overbroad as it seeks information regarding recalls
23 beyond the subject matter of this litigation. As SureSource argues, if a product was recalled due
24 to a defective on/off switch it would be irrelevant here. However, a recall that was due to a
25 power cord defect could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it does not appear to be
26 overly burdensome to require production of such documents.
Accordingly, SureSource is
27 ordered to produce responsive documents for any recall due to power cord defects for all
28 forty-five styling irons from January 1, 2005 to the present.
11
1
9.
2
Request for Production No. 13 seeks:
3
All agreements or contracts between YOU and CONAIR CONCERNING
PRODUCTS sold through www.conair-store.com.
4
5
Request for Production No. 13
Defendant’s objection states:
8
The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the
term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87
curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not
limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California.
Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable
time frame.
9
Plaintiff contends that production of the contract between SureSource and Conair is
6
7
10 necessary to determine if SureSource is under a contractual agreement to keep information
11 confidential and to understand what information SureSource has that Conair does not. Defendant
12 replies that Plaintiff can obtain this information by way of deposition.
13
The Court finds that the Request for Production of the contract between SureSource and
14 Conair is beyond the scope of pre-class certification discovery. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
15 production in response to Request for Production No. 13 is denied.
16
10.
17
Request for Production No. 14 seeks:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Request for Production No. 14
DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY what services YOU provide to
CONAIR CONCERNING PRODUCTS sold through www.conairstore.com.
Defendant’s objection states:
The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the
term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87
curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not
limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California.
Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable
time frame.
Plaintiff contends that this information is necessary to determine if SureSource has
26 critical documents that Conair claims to not possess. The parties have agreed that SureSource
27 may provide a response to this request by declaration. Accordingly, SureSource shall provide a
28 declaration identifying those services which it provides to Conair responsive to this request.
12
1
11.
Preservation of Evidence
2
Plaintiff requests that SureSource be required to include in their declaration a statement
3 that they will preserve all evidence or notify Plaintiff of the intent to purge or overwrite any
4 information during the course of the litigation. “Litigants owe an uncompromising duty to
5 preserve what they know or reasonably should know will be relevant evidence in a pending
6 lawsuit, or one in the offing . . . .” JUDGE WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER ET AL., FEDERAL
7 CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 11:125 (2004) (internal quotations and citations
8 omitted); see also Leon v. Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006). This obligation, backed
9 by the court’s power to impose sanctions for the destruction of such evidence, Chambers v.
10 Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991), is sufficient in most cases to secure the preservation of
11 relevant evidence. SureSource is now on notice that the evidence is in issue in this action and
12 therefore is advised that any responsive documents must be preserved until the class allegations
13 in this action are resolved.
14
IV.
15
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
16
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1.
appear on that date;
18
19
2.
a.
The motion to compel responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 4, 5, 10, 11,
and 13 is DENIED;
22
23
Plaintiff’s motion to compel production is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART as follows:
20
21
The December 9, 2015 hearing is VACATED and the parties are not required to
b.
SureSource shall produce responsive documents as discussed herein for Requests
24
for Production Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 14 within fourteen days from the date
25
of entry of this order; and
26
///
27
///
28
///
13
3.
1
Failure to comply with this order may result in the issuance of monetary
sanctions.
2
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 Dated:
December 4, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?