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)

Download PDF
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

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?