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

Filing 64

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

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