DuFour et al v. Be, LLC et al

Filing 147

ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER #142 . Signed by Judge Beeler on 7/20/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
TIMOTHY DUFOUR, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. C 09-03770 LB
ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER

13
BE LLC, et al.,

[ECF No. 142]

14
15
16

Defendant.
_____________________________________/
On September 21, 2010, the district court referred all discovery in the above-captioned matter to

17

the undersigned. Referral Order, ECF No. 116 at 1.1 On July 8, 2011, the parties filed a joint

18

discovery letter in which Plaintiffs Timothy DuFour, Jeanne DuFour, and Kenneth Tanner

19

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Monterey Financial Services, Inc. (“Monterey”) dispute

20

the adequacy of Monterey’s responses to three requests for the production of documents and one

21

interrogatory. Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No. 142. The court conducted a telephone conference

22

with the parties on July 20, 2011 and issues the following order.

23

The parties agreed that Monterey would produce the documents requested by Plaintiffs’ Request

24

No. 7. Monterey stated that it could produce the documents within two weeks. The court ORDERS

25

Monterey to provide the documents within two weeks of the date of this order.

26

At this stage in the litigation, when Plaintiffs have been unwilling to commit to filing a motion

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 09-03770 LB
ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

1

for class certification, the court finds that the burdens outweigh the benefits with regard to requiring

2

Monterey to provide additional information in response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 4.

3

Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to compel a further response to Interrogatory No.

4

4

5

With regard to Plaintiffs’ Request No. 8 and Request No. 9, the information provided by the

6

parties in the letter and the telephone conference was not sufficient for the court to determine their

7

reasonableness. The court views the information covered by Plaintiffs’ earlier compromise position

8

as relevant and likely to be maintained in an electronic format that can be produced relatively

9

inexpensively. At the same time, Monterey’s lawyer did not have sufficient information at the

to produce it. Therefore, the court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer again within two weeks.

12
For the Northern District of California

hearing about how the client actually maintains the information or how difficult or costly it might be

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

The parties should include a representative from Monterey who is knowledgeable about Monterey’s

13

databases and record-keeping practices. The parties also should involve any other individuals with

14

sufficient technical knowledge and experience to understand and communicate about the technical

15

issues and facilitate the orderly production of discovery. If the meet-and-confer process does not

16

resolve the parties’ dispute, they shall contact courtroom deputy Lashanda Scott at 510-637-3525 to

17

schedule a further telephone conference. The parties shall file a joint letter of no more than three

18

pages by noon the day before the telephone conference with an update.

19

The court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request for a continuance because that issue

20

must be directed to the district court, which controls its docket and the case management deadlines.

21

This disposes of ECF No. 142.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: July 20, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

C 09-03770 LB
ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

2