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)

Download PDF
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

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?