Hensley-Maclean et al v. Safeway, Inc.
Filing
157
Discovery Order re: 155 Discovery Letter Brief re Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 12/19/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
DEE HENSLEY-MACLEAN and SARA
DUNCAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 11-cv-01230-RS (MEJ)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 155
9
v.
10
11
SAFEWAY, INC.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendant.
12
13
14
Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter, filed December 19, 2014,
15
regarding Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories, Set Three, served on Defendant Safeway, Inc. on June 11,
16
2014. Dkt. No. 155, Ex. A. Interrogatory No. 20 asks for the number of units and total retail sales
17
prices of recalled products that Safeway sold. Safeway objected to Interrogatory No. 20 on
18
grounds that it is overbroad in that it seeks information on all Class I recalls and not just the recalls
19
of the named Plaintiffs. However, the Court previously found that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not
20
limited to recalls involving the named Plaintiffs, and the presiding judge has made no
21
determination that such a limitation is appropriate based on Plaintiffs’ standing or for any other
22
reason. See Dkt. No. 153. Accordingly, at this stage, Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery that
23
includes all recalled products.
24
Safeway also argues that it cannot determine from its systems the unit and sales revenue of
25
recalled products because neither Safeway’s Club Card system nor its point of sale system
26
captures such lot and plant information. Safeway notes that in 2011, Plaintiffs took the deposition
27
of Valerie Lewis, Safeway’s Senior Corporate Attorney, and she explained that Safeway Club
28
Card data, for instance, captures a UPC code, but the UPC code “does not limit you to the
1
purchase of the recall[ed] item.” Plaintiffs do not respond to this argument, and they have failed
2
to show how Safeway can produce what it does not have. However, it is possible that Safeway
3
could reasonably produce at least part of the requested information in a different format.
4
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer in person and make a good faith
5
effort to determine whether this is possible. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter on their
6
own and resort to further briefing, they shall include a description of the alternatives proposed by
7
both sides.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Dated: December 19, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?