Baptiste et al v. KS Industries, LP

Filing 36

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/24/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AARON BAPTISTE, et al.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
KS INDUSTRIES, LP,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00016 AWI JLT
ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

17

The Court held an informal telephonic conference regarding a brewing discovery dispute.

18

(Doc. 32) At issue were the plaintiffs’ responses to requests made under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. At the

19

conference, it became clear that the plaintiffs have not produced all responsive documents within

20

their control; rather, they have responded as to responsive documents in their possession. This is

21

inadequate.
On the other hand, it was equally clear that many of the production requests were quite

22
23

overbroad, required the plaintiffs to guess at their meanings and duplicated many of the requests

24

over and over.1 In addition, the Court learned that the depositions have been taken of four of the five

25

plaintiffs but neither attorney appearing at the informal conference were aware of the questions

26
27
28

1

Seemingly, the defense believes the production request serves as a contention interrogatory. For example, the defense
argued that if a production request seeks documents for a category of damages the plaintiff is not claiming, the plaintiff
is obligated to point this out. Fed.R.Civ.P.34(b)(2) does not require this. Moreover, the plaintiffs should have identified
their categories of damages in their Rule 26 disclosure, which makes the current uncertainty a mystery.

1

1

asked of the plaintiffs related to the production requests or whether the testimony resolved any of the

2

outstanding disputes. Finally, the Court learned that the document production sought in conjunction

3

with deposition notices for two of the plaintiffs, were not served timely, despite that the Court had

4

been told that enforcement of these production requests was at issue at the informal conference.
Based upon this information, it was apparent to the Court that the dispute was not ripe for

5
6

resolution. Rather, the defense counsel sought the conference only because she believed the deadline

7

for filing non-dipositive motions was imminent and not because counsel had exhausted meet-and-

8

confer efforts. Not only is an impending deadline not a basis for failing to exhaust meet-and-confer

9

efforts as required in the scheduling order (Doc. 19 at 6), the Court notes that the deadline for filing

10

non-dispositive motions expires on February 15, 20192 and not on October 27, 2018. In any event,

11

the Court ORDERS:
1.

12

The plaintiffs SHALL ensure that they have produced all responsive documents

13

within their control and either provide an amended response or a statement that no amended

14

response is necessary so it is received by defense counsel no later than November 2, 2018;
2.

15

If the amended response or the statement that no amended response is necessary does

16

not resolve the dispute, no later than November 6, 2018, defense counsel SHALL contact the

17

Court to set a further informal telephonic conference;
3.

18
19

Counsel SHALL review the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs to determine

whether it has resolved or clarified production topics at issue;
4.

20

Counsel SHALL meet their ongoing obligation to meet-and-confer to attempt to

21

resolve the dispute. To the extent that the disputes can be resolved through the defense clarifying the

22

meaning of the requests, this SHALL be provided in writing.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

October 24, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

2

The Court accepted the representation of defense counsel (stated at the conference and in email correspondence to the
Court seeking the conference), that the deadline to file “discovery motions,” was October 26, 2018. After the
conference, the Court realized this was not correct (Doc. 19).

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3