Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc.

Filing 131

ORDER Regarding Discovery Dispute Conference; ORDER Setting Telephone Status Conference for 10/4/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe; ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule on T.G.S. Transportation, Inc.' s Motion to Compel Proper Designation of Documents and Discovery Responses Produced by Roadrunner in Discovery; ORDER Taking T.G.S. Transportation, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses Under Submission, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/28/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

JEFFREY COX,

7
v.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, CENTRAL CAL
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1
through 50,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,
Defendant/CounterPlaintiff,

16
17

JEFFREY COX,

19

Plaintiff/CounterDefendant.
_________________________________/

ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS
CONFERENCE FOR OCTOBER 4, 2018

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON
T.G.S. TRANSPORTATION, INC.’S MOTION
TO COMPEL PROPER DESIGNATION OF
DOCUMENTS AND DISCOVERY RESPONSES
PRODUCED BY ROADRUNNER IN
DISCOVERY
(Doc. No. 115)

v.

18

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE
CONFERENCE

20
21
22

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,

23

ORDER TAKING T.G.S TRANSPORTATION,
INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
RESPONSES UNDER SUBMISSION
(Doc No. 114)

Plaintiff,

24
25
26

v.
T.G.S. TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1-10,

27

Defendants.
_________________________________/

28

///
1

1

On September 6, 2018, in an effort to resolve pending discovery disputes, the Court ordered

2

counsel with binding authority for each party to personally appear on September 27, 2018, to meet and

3

confer to resolve the outstanding discovery motions and impending discovery motions and to establish

4

a schedule for completion of discovery and depositions in this action. (Doc. No. 123.)

5

On September 27, 2018, as directed by the Court, counsel for the parties with binding authority

6

personally appeared to meet and confer to resolve the outstanding discovery motions and impending

7

discovery motions and to establish a schedule for completion of discovery and depositions in this action.

8

Michael Lane, Sean Newland and Jim Nelson appeared on behalf of Roadrunner Intermodal Services,

9

LLC (“Roadrunner”) and Central Cal Transportation, LLC (“Central Cal”). Scott Ivy and Sean Newland

10

appeared on behalf of T.G.S. Transportation, Inc. (“T.G.S.”). Howard Sagaser appeared on behalf of

11

Jeffrey Cox.

12

At the conclusion of meet and confer efforts and conferences with the Court, the parties provided

13

a summary of their progress. With respect to deposition scheduling for the remainder of the case, the

14

parties agreed upon the following proposal: By the end of the day on September 27, 2018, each side

15

will submit a list of the remaining persons they would like to depose. By Tuesday, October 2, 2018,

16

each party will respond to the opposing party’s list and indicate either no objection to the particular

17

deposition or an objection a particular deposition for which Court resolution will be needed. The parties

18

also will address the total number of depositions. Any deposition issues remaining after October 2,

19

2018, will be raised with the Court at a TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE set for October 4,

20

2018, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The

21

parties may appear at the conference by telephone with each party using the following dial-in number

22

and access code: dial-in number 1-877-411-9748; access code 3190866.

23

In addition to deposition scheduling, all of the parties to this action reached an agreement relative

24

to search terms for the production of documents, and the parties will attempt to use search terms

25

according to the following protocol: By October 5, 2018, each party wishing to do so will submit

26

proposed search terms to all other parties. The parties will then have a two-week window in which they

27

are required to meet and confer in good faith as to any disputes over the scope of the search proposed,

28

its feasibility and related issues. On October 19, 2018, the parties will each prepare a list of the number
2

1

of documents flagged by the searches to give a scope of production. Production of documents flagged

2

and identified by the search will be produced starting on November 2, 2018, and completed by

3

November 9, 2018.

4

Additionally, with respect to texts messages responsive to T.G.S.’s documents requests, counsel

5

for Roadrunner has agreed it will review T.G.S.’s prior request and locate any responsive texts from

6

appropriate employees. Roadrunner then will respond on or before October 19, 2018, to indicate

7

whether there are additional responsive text messages. If so, the responsive text messages will be

8

produced by Roadrunner between November 2 and November 9, 2018.

9

With respect to T.G.S.’s production of documents, Roadrunner had a meet and confer regarding

10

T.G.S.’s responses to production. T.G.S. has since made a production of documents, but Roadrunner’s

11

counsel has not had a chance to review the production. Following review, Roadrunner will notify T.G.S.

12

prior to the telephonic conference call scheduled with the Court on October 4, 2018, if the issues have

13

been resolved or if there is anything left for the Court to resolve with respect to T.G.S.’s responses.

14

With respect to the employment action involving Roadrunner and Jeffrey Cox, and the document

15

requests sent by Mr. Cox to Roadrunner and Central Cal, the parties represented that they had agreed to

16

narrow certain requests, set time limits, and identified the requests that likely would be resolved through

17

the search terms. The parties also agreed that requests for the same documents from Roadrunner and

18

Central Cal will not require a duplicate production.

19

With respect to T.G.S.’s motion requesting an order compelling Roadrunner to de-designate or

20

properly designate multiple produced documents and written discovery responses designated

21

“Attorney’s Eyes Only” (“AEO”) under the Protective Order (Doc. No. 115), the parties could not

22

resolve the motion. However, the parties did agree to meet and confer to a carve-out of a 600-pages of

23

exhibits to Stock Purchase Agreement from that disagreement. As to the remaining unresolved issues

24

from the motion, Roadrunner and T.G.S. shall each file and serve a 5-7-page brief and any exhibits by

25

October 8, 2018, on the issue of removing the AEO designation.

26

With respect to T.G.S.’s motion to compel discovery responses (Doc. No. 114), the matter has

27

not been resolved, but has been fully briefed for the Court in a joint statement submitted by the parties

28

(Doc. 116). The joint statement contains three issues, one of which was completion of Roadrunner’s
3

1

document production that the parties reached an agreement upon during the meet and confer conference.

2

The remaining two unresolved issues pertain to: (1) T.G.S.’s document production requests relative to

3

Roadrunner’s trade secrets; and (2) Roadrunner’s response to T.G.S.’s Interrogatory No. 4 regarding

4

Roadrunner’s lost profits claim. The Court will take the motion under submission pursuant to Local

5

Rule 230, and the matter is deemed submitted on the papers.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 28, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4