Hensley-Maclean et al v. Safeway, Inc.

Filing 162

Discovery Order re: 156 Discovery Letter Brief re Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents filed by Sara Duncan, Dee Hensley-Maclean. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/8/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2015)

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. 156

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: (1) Plaintiffs Dee Hensley-Maclean and Sara Duncan’s Requests for Production of

16

Documents, Set Three, served on June 11, 2014; and (2) Defendant Safeway, Inc.’s Federal Rule

17

of Civil Procedure 26 Initial Disclosures for Plaintiff Sara Duncan. Dkt. No. 156. This dispute is

18

a continuation of issues addressed in the Court’s December 16, 2014 Discovery Order compelling

19

Safeway’s attendance at deposition. Dkt. No. 153. In that Order, the Court held that, based on the

20

scope of their claims, Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery regarding all recalled products, not just

21

recalls involving products purchased by the named Plaintiffs. Id. at 2-3. The Court also held that

22

Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery regarding Safeway’s “Just for U” program, through which

23

Safeway contacts Club Card members to inform them about personalized discounts based on past

24

Club Card purchases. Id. at 3. After the Court issued its Order, the parties met and conferred on

25

the issue of whether Safeway would drop its objections, but Safeway states that it is contemplating

26

a challenge to the Deposition Order and will not withdraw its objections.

27

However, during a January 6, 2015 meet and confer, Plaintiffs indicated a willingness to

28

limit their requests to the 2010 egg recall, the 2009 peanut butter recall, and a turkey meat recall

1

referred to during the deposition of one of Safeway’s witnesses. Status Letter, Dkt. No. 161. The

2

Plaintiffs also indicated a willingness to discuss electronic searches to minimize the burden on

3

Safeway. Accordingly, as the Court has lifted the discovery deadline and it is not clear that

4

Plaintiffs need full discovery on all recalls to prepare their class certification motion due on

5

February 26, 2015, the Court ORDERS the parties to continue their good faith meet and confer

6

efforts to evaluate these proposals and potentially resolve the open issues. If the parties are still

7

unable to resolve their dispute, they shall file a joint letter by January 20, 2015. While the Court

8

agrees with Plaintiffs that the scope of their case addresses more than three recalls, it is also aware

9

that the case may be narrowed by the presiding judge based on standing or other issues.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dated: January 8, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2