Jorge Quezada v. Con-Way Inc.

Filing 93

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to compel production of materials responsive to Plaintiff's third document inspection request. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 JORGE R. QUEZADA, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15 CON-WAY FREIGHT INC.,
16
17
18
19

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. C 09-03670 JSW (NJV)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
MATERIALS RESPONSIVE TO
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD DOCUMENT
INSPECTION REQUEST
[Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37]
Hearing
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:

November 6, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Telephonic

20
21

On November 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., the Court heard Plaintiff Jorge R. Quezada’s motion to

22 compel Defendant Con-way Freight, Inc. to produce certain materials in response to Plaintiff’s
23 Third Document Inspection Request. Lawrence R. Cagney of Westrup Klick, LLP appeared on
24 behalf of Plaintiff and the Certified Class, Barrett K. Green and Erica Kelley, Littler Mendelson
25 PC, appeared on behalf of Defendant Con-way Freight, Inc.. The Court, having considered the
26 papers and arguments submitted, hereby rules as follows:
27

1. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Requests Nos. 56, 57, 58, 61 & 62. Defendant is

28

hereby ordered to conduct a reasonable and diligent search of its records for documents

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD DOCUMENT INSPECTION REQUEST

1

responsive to such requests and to produce them to Plaintiff’s counsel in electronic form

2

no later than December 31, 2012. Plaintiff shall have until February 15, 2013 at 4:00

3

p.m. to review such production and to notify Defendant’s counsel of any alleged

4

deficiency regarding Defendant’s production. The parties shall thereafter meet and

5

confer with a view to resolving any disagreements concerning any alleged deficiency.

6

If such efforts are unsuccessful, Plaintiff may so notify the Court and request a further

7

hearing on the adequacy of Defendant’s compliance with this Order.

8
9

2.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to Requests Nos. 59 and 60. The Court is not
persuaded, at this time, that Defendant’s electronic access control records are

10

sufficiently probative to justify the burden of requiring Defendant to produce them in

11

light of Defendant’s representation that drivers’ Record of Duty Status log books are

12

available for production. Therefore, the Court orders Defendant to produce a sample of

13

its Records of Duty Status log book pages for the Class Members during the class

14

period on or before December 31, 2012. The parties have agreed that such sample shall

15

be co-extensive with the sample periods for linehaul drivers agreed upon by the parties

16

in July 2011. The Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion as to this request is without

17

prejudice to revisiting this issue upon a showing of good cause and without prejudice to

18

further appropriate discovery by Plaintiff.

19

3. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Requests Nos. 64, 65 & 66. Defendant shall

20

produce the information responsive to these requests in electronic form on or before

21

December 31, 2012.

22

November 21, 2012
23 Dated: ______________________

____________________________
HON. NANDOR J. VADAS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD DOCUMENT INSPECTION REQUEST