AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Integral Consulting, Inc. et al

Filing 115

ORDER regarding discovery dispute (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9

AMEC ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.,

10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13

INTEGRAL CONSULTING, INC. et
al.,

14
Defendants.
15
16

) Case No. 12-cv-01735-SC
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19
20

On May 6, 2014, Judge Nathanael Cousins -- who is managing

21

discovery in this case -- issued an order on several discovery

22

disputes.

23

Cousins denied Plaintiff AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.'s

24

("AMEC") objection to the search terms that Defendant Integral

25

Consulting, Inc. ("Integral") used in its document production.

26

Judge Cousins also denied AMEC's request for an order that Integral

27

use different search criteria to produce documents.

28

denied the request because AMEC raised the issue too late in the

ECF No. 91 ("Discovery Order").

In that order, Judge

Judge Cousins

1
2

discovery process.

Id. at 3-4.

AMEC has objected to Judge Cousins's order, arguing that AMEC

to resolve this case through mediation and informal discovery.

5

According to AMEC, the only reason the issue was not raised earlier

6

was because AMEC had hoped that formal discovery might not be

7

necessary at all.

8

United States District Court

failed to raise the issue earlier because of a good-faith attempt

4

For the Northern District of California

3

parties did not brief the timing issue, so Judge Cousins may not

9

have considered AMEC's explanation when he ruled.

10

ECF No. 97 ("AMEC Obj'n"), at 3-4.

However, the

The Court hoped that the parties would be able to agree on the

11

correct search terms to use without the necessity of ruling on the

12

objection.

13

Court ordered AMEC and Integral to meet and confer regarding search

14

terms.

15

submitted a series of letters to the Court.

16

July 17 Letter"), 107 ("Integral July 18 Letter"), 108 ("AMEC July

17

21 Letter").

18

been unable to resolve their dispute regarding search terms.

19

To that end, at a status conference on May 30, the

See ECF No. 101.

Since that date, the parties have
ECF Nos. 106 ("AMEC

From those letters, it is clear that the parties have

AMEC asserts that "[o]n May 30, 2014, the Court expressly

20

overruled Judge Cousins's prior order."

21

is not the case; the Court did not rule on AMEC's objection at the

22

May 30 conference.

23

vain) hope that the parties could meet and confer and resolve this

24

issue without judicial intervention.

25

AMEC July 21 Letter.

That

The Court merely expressed its (apparently

That said, it is possible that AMEC's argument is meritorious.

26

The Court would not wish to punish AMEC for engaging in a good

27

faith attempt to resolve the case through mediation and informal

28

discovery.

If AMEC's explanation is accurate, Judge Cousins may

2

1

have inadvertently penalized AMEC for its mediation efforts because

2

he ruled on this issue before AMEC had an opportunity to explain.

3

The Court therefore DIRECTS AMEC to re-raise its search term

4

objection before Judge Cousins, so that Judge Cousins may, if he

5

finds it appropriate, reconsider his ruling on the search term

6

objection in light of AMEC's explanation for its timing.

7

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: July 31, 2014

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3