Schmuckley et al v. Rite Aid Corporation

Filing 258

ORDER AFTER HEARING signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/4/2019 GRANTING California's motion to compel (ECF No. 249 ) and Rite Aid's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 250 ). (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ex rel.
LOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR.,

13
14

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:12-cv-1699-KJM-EFB

ORDER AFTER HEARING

v.

15

RITE AID CORPORATION,

16

Defendant.

17
18

This case was before the court on October 30, 2019, for hearing on plaintiff-intervenor

19

State of California’s motion to compel defendant Rite Aid Corporation to provide further

20

responses to California’s Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) numbers 17-38 (ECF

21

No. 249) and defendant Rite Aid’s motion for an extension of time to provide responses to

22

California’s discovery requests and to comply with the court’s July 2, 2019 order (ECF No. 250).

23

California Deputy Attorneys General Emmanuel Salazar and Bernice Yew appeared on behalf of

24

California. Attorney Benjamin Smith appeared on behalf of Rite Aid.

25

As discussed at the hearing, Rite Aid has produced some, but not all, of the documents

26

responsive to California’s RPD Nos. 17-38. With respect to those that have been produced, Rite

27

Aid’s production does not allow for California to determine, with reasonable effort, which

28

documents are responsive to each specific request. Accordingly, Rite Aid must supplement its
1

1

discovery responses to identify which documents are responsive to each of the requests in

2

California’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 7 (i.e., RPD Nos. 17-38). See City of

3

Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 578, 584-85 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“[A] party

4

exercising Rule 34’s option to produce records as they are kept in the usual course of business

5

should organize the documents in such a manner that the requesting party may obtain, with

6

reasonable effort, the documents responsive to their requests . . . . The standard this Court will use

7

in determining what is required will be whether the production allows the requesting party to

8

reasonably determine what documents are responsive to its requests. If it does, the production

9

complies with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)”); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Cantine Rallo, S.p.A., 2006 WL

10

2583672, at * 2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2006) (“Despite Defendant’s representation that it has

11

produced 1026 pages of documents, each grouping of which has been neatly labeled to designate

12

the category of documents at issue, it is reasonable for Plaintiff to request a supplemental

13

response which enables them to determine which documents are responsive to each request.”). It

14

must do the same for the documents it produced in response to California’s RPD Nos. 1, 2, 15,

15

16, which were the subject of the July 2, 2019 order—the order that Rite Aid currently seeks an

16

extension of time to comply with. See ECF Nos. 225, 250.

17

Accordingly, for these reasons, and for the additional reasons stated on the record, it is

18

hereby ORDERED that California’s motion to compel (ECF No. 249) and Rite Aid’s request for

19

an extension of time (ECF No. 250) are granted as follows:

20
21

1. Rite Aid shall produce all documents responsive to California’s RPD Nos. 17-38 by no
later than November 25, 2019.

22

2. The deadline for Rite Aid to comply with the court’s July 2, 2019 order, including its

23

requirement that Ride Aid produce all “patient medication profiles,” is extended to November 25,

24

2019.

25

3. By no later than November 25, 2019, Rite Aid shall also provide a supplemental

26

response to California’s RPD Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, and 18-38 that identifies which documents are

27

responsive to each request.

28

/////
2

1
2

4. The scheduling dates related to Rite Aid’s eleventh affirmative defense, as set forth in
the court’s September 30, 2019 order (see ECF No. 244 at 7-8), are modified as follows:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Event
Rite Aid Corporation’s production
of documents responsive to RFP
Set No. 7
Parties’ stipulation, if agreed upon,
to amend the named defendant
with relation back (including
removal of Rite Aid Corporation
from pleadings)
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the
pleadings (if necessary following
Parties’ inability to stipulate)
Defendant’s opposition to motion
to amend
Plaintiffs’ reply re motion to
amend
Hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the
pleadings

December 13, 2019

January 2, 2020

February 10, 2020
February 24, 2020
TBD1

So Ordered.

15
16

New Deadline
November 25, 2019

DATED: November 4, 2019.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

All other scheduling dates set forth in the court’s September 30, 2019 order remain in

place.
3