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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?