Nichols v. Tractor Supply Company

Filing 38

ORDER granting in part plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery responses, document 24 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/26/2017. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

BRENNA NICHOLS,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:16-cv-01768-LJO-EPG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

(ECF No. 24)

TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY,

16

Defendant.

17
18

On June 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel bringing several discovery disputes

19

before the Court. (ECF No. 24) A motion hearing on the motion to compel was held on July 14,

20

2017, wherein the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion and provided specific

21

reasons on the record. (ECF No. 32) Formal ruling was reserved as to a final dispute as to

22

production of electronically stored information (ESI). (Id.)

23

As directed by the Court, the parties submitted written proposals to the Court as to the

24

appropriate scope of the required further production of ESI. (ECF Nos. 34, 36) The Court has

25

reviewed the proposals and for reasons provided on the record at the July 14, 2017 hearing, orders

26

as follows:

27
28

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 24) as to the production of ESI is GRANTED as
follows:
1

1

1.

Defendant will narrow the current review set of 4,894 documents as follows: (a)

2

eliminate all e-mails generated prior to February 1, 2013, (b) eliminate all e-mails generated after

3

October 23, 2016, (c) eliminate all e-mails which do not contain at least one of the following

4

search terms:

5

7

leave, absence*, Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, California Family Rights Act,
CFRA, accom*, permanent, temporary, lifting, receiver, position*, doctor*,
appoint*, dr., restrict*, return, return to work, perform*, dut*, retal*, discrim*,
unfair*, terminat*

8

2.

6

9
10

one or more of Requests for Production, and (b) privilege, attorney work-product and/or
privacy/confidentiality issues.
3.

11
12

Documents which are identified as responsive and neither privileged nor attorney

work-product must be produced by August 25, 2017.1
4.

13
14

Defendant will review the resulting review set documents for (a) responsiveness to

Documents which are identified as responsive but either privileged or attorney

work product will be identified on a privilege log, which shall be provided by August 25, 2017.
5.

15

By August 18, 2017, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer to resolve any

16

disputes regarding the handling of documents identified as responsive which raise

17

privacy/confidentiality issues.

18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20

Dated:

July 26, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If Defendant will have difficulty meeting the August 25 deadline, it should petition the Court for relief as soon as
the difficulty becomes apparent. In any case, it should undertake a rolling production that will permit any previouslyset depositions to go forward as scheduled.

2