Artis v. John Deere Landscapes, Inc. et al

Filing 56

DISCOVERY ORDER re 54 Letter filed by Deere & Company, John Deere Landscapes, Inc., Holly Artis. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/6/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

Northern District of California

9
10

HOLLY ARTIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

No. C 10-5289 WHA (MEJ)

11
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff,
12
13

v.

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
(DKT. #54)

DEERE & CO. and JOHN DEERE
LANDSCAPES, INC.,

14
15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17

Before the Court is the joint discovery dispute letter filed by Plaintiff Holly Artis and

18

Defendants Deere & Company and John Deere Landscapes, Inc. on September 1, 2011. Dkt. No.

19

54. The parties’ dispute concerns Defendants’ outstanding discovery responses to Plaintiff’s

20

requests for production of documents. Specifically, Plaintiff requests that the Court order

21

Defendants to immediately produce all of the outstanding discovery responses related to:

22

1)

receiving positions within the Construction and Forestry division of Deere;

23
24

2)

3)

JDL’s internal investigation of complaints of discrimination made to its hotline,
and/or a privilege log detailing withheld documents; and

27
28

JDL’s investigation of discrimination charges brought with governmental agencies by
women other than Ms. Artis, and/or a privilege log detailing withheld documents;

25
26

Data and documents related to entry-level customer service, sales, and shipping &

4)

Non-privileged documents related to JDL’s investigation of Ms. Artis’s EEOC

1

charge.

2

Dkt. No. 54 at 1-2. Plaintiff argues that it is imperative that this discovery is obtained immediately

3

as there is a November 10, 2011 deadline for filing a motion for class certification. Id. at 2.

4

In response, Defendants maintain that they have agreed to produce documents and discovery

5

responses relating to each of the categories outlined above “as soon as possible,” but they are unable

6

to stipulate to an exact production date due to circumstances outside of their control. Id. at 3-4.

7

Specifically, Defendants state that they are producing discovery on a nationwide basis, which often

8

involves third party vendors. Id. at 2-3. Defendants argue that the parties agreed that Defendants

9

would produce documents on a rolling basis in the order requested by Plaintiff. Id. at 3.

10

Given the November 10 filing deadline for her class certification motion, it is understandable
that Plaintiff seeks discovery responses in a timely manner. However, it appears that Defendants

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

have agreed to produce the requested discovery at the speed at which they are able, and the motion

13

filing deadline is still over two months away. Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendants will not

14

complete discovery in time for this deadline. Further, the non-expert discovery cut-off date is not

15

until February 29, 2012, (Dkt. No. 24), and it appears that the broad discovery categories addressed

16

in the parties’ letter may not all focused on class certification issues. If there is no specific dispute

17

before the Court, it is unclear how Plaintiff expects the Court to intervene. Accordingly, the Court

18

finds no need to act at this time. However, Defendants should be mindful of the November 10 filing

19

deadline and ensure that Plaintiff receives all requested discovery far enough in advance to prepare

20

her motion.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: September 6, 2011

24

_______________________________

25

Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2