Soto et al v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER RE DISCOVERY 62 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/19/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 ALEX SOTO and VINCE EAGEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, No. C 12-1377 SI ORDER RE: DISCOVERY Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., 12 Defendant. / 13 14 The parties have filed separate letter briefs regarding a dispute related to defendant’s production 15 of electronically stored information (“ESI”).1 Plaintiffs state that they need a timetable for production 16 that will enable plaintiffs to review the material and do any necessary follow-up before filing the motion 17 for class certification. The class certification motion is currently scheduled to be filed on April 8, 2013, 18 and plaintiffs request an extension of time for that filing until May 13, 2013. Plaintiffs note that 19 defendant has produced a significant amount of information already, and that defendant has largely 20 agreed to provide all of the documents and materials that plaintiffs have requested. 21 Defendant responds that it has not provided a timetable to plaintiffs because defendant is still 22 processing the ESI, and defendant does “not believe it wise to commit to timeframes without knowing 23 the precise universe of data that requires review and production.” Docket No. 63 at 1. Defendant notes 24 that during the months of January and February of this year, the parties were engaged in settlement 25 negotiations, and that during these discussions, defendant advised plaintiffs that it was deferring 26 27 28 1 The Court’s Standing Order directs parties to file joint statements regarding discovery disputes. The parties shall comply with Paragraph 2 of the Standing Order with regard to any future discovery disputes. incurring the significant costs associated with ESI production in the event that a settlement could be 2 reached. Defendant states that it immediately undertook to process the ESI data once settlement talks 3 broke down at the end of February. Defendant states that the ESI data is still being processed, and that 4 on March 14, 2013, defendant provided plaintiffs with a preliminary “hit report” illustrating the number 5 of documents being returned against the search terms, and several errors in the search term logic that 6 required correction. Defendant requests that it be granted until March 20, 2013, to “complete the current 7 processing of its ESI data, preliminarily review same, and provide Plaintiffs with a good faith proposal 8 for document production milestones and the completion of production in advance of the class 9 certification motion.” Id at 2. Defendant also proposes that no later than March 26, 2013, the parties 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 meet and confer and jointly submit a letter to the Court seeking an extension of the class certification 11 deadlines, likely to be no more than 45 to 60 days. 12 In light of the volume of discovery and the parties’ recent settlement discussions, the Court finds 13 that defendant’s proposal is reasonable and hereby adopts it. Accordingly, by March 20, 2013, 14 defendants shall complete the current processing and preliminary review of its ESI data, and provide 15 plaintiffs with a proposed production timetable. No later than March 26, 2013, the parties shall meet 16 and confer and file a stipulation and proposed order setting forth a new schedule for the class 17 certification motion. 18 This order resolves Docket No. 62. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: March 19, 2013 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?