Georgia-Pacific LLC v. OfficeMax Incorporated et al

Filing 162

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTERS DATED 150 APRIL 1, 2014, 151 152 153 154 155 APRIL 2, 2014, AND 156 APRIL 7, 2014. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/17/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 No. C 12-02797 WHO (LB) Plaintiff, v. 13 OFFICEMAX INC, et al., ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTERS DATED APRIL 1, 2014, APRIL 2, 2014, AND APRIL 7, 2014 14 15 Defendants. _____________________________________/ [Re: ECF Nos. 150-156] 16 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT 17 On April 1, 2014, Georgia-Pacific LLC (“GP”) and OfficeMax Inc. (“OfficeMax”) filed a joint 18 letter asking the court to resolve a dispute about the sufficiency of the testimony of one of GP’s 19 corporate deposition witnesses. See 4/1/2014 Letter, ECF No. 150. The next day, on April 2, 2014, 20 GP and the City of Fort Bragg (the “City”) filed five letters of their own, four of which relate to the 21 sufficiency of the testimony of GP’s corporate deposition witnesses and one of which relates to 22 discovery GP seeks about a 2008 “computer crash” that affected the City’s electronic records. See 23 First 4/2/2014 Letter, ECF No. 151; Second 4/2/2014 Letter, ECF No. 152; Third 4/2/2014 Letter, 24 ECF No. 153; Fourth 4/2/2014 Letter, ECF No. 154; Fifth 4/2/2014 Letter, ECF No. 155. And on 25 April 7, 2014, GP and the City filed another letter, which relates to the City’s challenge to GP’s 26 withholding of certain documents as privileged. See 4/7/2014 Letter, ECF No. 156. The court held 27 a hearing on all seven letters on April 17, 2014. See 4/17/2014 Minute Order, ECF No. 161. Upon 28 consideration of the letters submitted, the discussion at the April 17, 2014 hearing, and the C 12-02797 WHO (LB) ORDER 1 applicable legal authority, the court orders additional deposition time as set forth below. 2 ANALYSIS 3 I. THE DISPUTES ABOUT THE SUFFICIENCY OF GP’S CORPORATE DEPOSITION 4 WITNESSES 5 In February 2014, OfficeMax, the City, and Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (“LP”) (collectively, 6 “Defendants”) jointly served a deposition notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) 7 requiring GP to testify about 112 distinct topics. Several individuals testified on GP’s behalf at the 8 deposition that apparently occurred over a four-day period. OfficeMax and the City now complain 9 that GP’s witnesses were not sufficiently prepared for the deposition. The court addresses each 10 complaint in turn below. A. GP and OfficeMax’s 4/1/2014 Letter (ECF No. 150) 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 GP and OfficeMax’s dispute is about GP’s corporate witness’s testimony about Topic No. 6, 13 which asked GP to testify about “GP’s efforts to identify, collect, preserve and process documents, 14 including but not limited to electronic data, potentially relevant to the issues in the case or as 15 requested in discovery.” To testify about this topic, GP produced an attorney from its legal 16 department, Michael Davis, who came to deposition with a 4-page “cheat sheet” that was prepared 17 by GP’s outside counsel, Hunton & Williams LLP. Mr. Davis did not assist in the preparation of 18 this document, and he prepared for the deposition only by reviewing it. When asked questions on 19 the topic during the deposition, he referred only to the cheat sheet and could not provide any 20 information that was not on it. As OfficeMax recounts, Mr. Davis was not able to provide 21 substantive answers to many general questions about GP’s collection and processing of 22 electronically stored information or to follow-up questions concerning the information that was 23 contained in the cheat sheet. 24 OfficeMax says that Mr. Davis’s testimony was insufficient under Rule 30(b)(6), as GP did not 25 fulfill its duty to produce a witness who could competently testify on its behalf about Topic No. 6. 26 Instead, GP produced a witness who could only parrot 4 pages of statements made by GP’s outside 27 counsel. GP says that Topic No. 6 was broadly written and asked about GP’s collection and 28 processing of documents at a high-level, and that was the level at which Mr. Davis came prepared to C 12-02797 WHO (LB) ORDER 2 1 discuss the topic. 2 In the end, a witness cannot simply be a mouthpiece for outside counsel. See, e.g., In re 3 Neurontin Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1479, Master File No. 02-1390, 2011 WL 2357793, at *5-7 4 (D.N.J. June 9, 2011). That being said, as the court said at the hearing, there is a tension between a 5 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice with 112 categories and GP’s ability to prepare witnesses to answer 6 questions effectively. To make that process more productive, at the hearing, the court ordered a 7 meet-and-confer that must include the parties’ technical experts. On GP’s side, that probably means 8 someone in charge of IT. After that meet-and-confer, which will illuminate the document collection 9 and retention landscape, the attorneys must confer about how to make the follow-up Rule 30(b)(6) Counsel initially asked for the additional deposition to be in San Francisco (as opposed to in 12 For the Northern District of California deposition productive. The court orders additional deposition time of no more than three hours. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 Atlanta). For the reasons discussed and agreed to on the record, all additional depositions will be in 13 Atlanta. 14 B. GP and the City’s First 4/2/2014 Letter (ECF No. 151) 15 GP and the City’s first dispute is about GP’s corporate witness’s testimony about Topic Nos. 67, 16 70, and 71, which asked GP to testify about “Any investigation prior to 2002 regarding whether any 17 operation at the mill site produced dioxin,” “Any analysis or investigation done by GP prior to 2002 18 regarding the presence of dioxin at any of the facilities that GP operated in the United States,” and 19 “Any analysis or investigation that was in GP’s possession prior to 2002, regardless of whom the 20 author was, regarding any environmental or human health dangers posed by exposure to dioxin,” 21 respectively. To testify about these topics, GP produced Richard Hilarides. During the deposition, 22 Mr. Hilarides testified that he believed it GP was required, or at least expected, to conduct a 23 beneficial reuse analysis that would have examined soil from the mill site to see if it contained 24 dioxins, but he also testified that he had not seen such an analysis and did not know if one had been 25 done. When asked why he did not ask to see whether a beneficial reuse analysis had been done, he 26 testified that he had not thought about it until then (i.e., during the deposition). 27 28 The City believes that Mr. Hilarides’s testimony about the beneficial reuse analysis shows that GP did not adequately prepare him as a corporate witness, and it asks the court to require GP to C 12-02797 WHO (LB) ORDER 3 1 produce a witness who can discuss the beneficial reuse analysis. GP argues that the City’s topic did 2 not encompass beneficial reuse analyses, and even if it did, there is no evidence that one was done 3 and so there is nothing for another witness to be deposed about. 4 As discussed at the hearing, the topic put GP on notice about beneficial reuse analyses. Given 5 that Mr. Hilarides testified that one probably or should have occurred, the topic is relevant. As 6 discussed at the hearing, GP should prepare Mr. Hilarides based on the relevant documents. GP 7 needs to find out if a beneficial reuse analysis was done. If it was, Mr. Hilarides can look at it and 8 tell the City what it says. If it was not done, and based on the available documents that have been 9 produced, Mr. Hilarides can shed light on why it was not done. C. GP and the City’s Second 4/2/2014 Letter (ECF No. 153) 11 GP and the City’s second dispute is about GP’s corporate witness’s testimony about Topic Nos. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 25 and 29, which asked GP to testify about “All materials, including but not limited to any wastes or 13 other than bark and wood waste, that were burned at any time in any of the boilers used on the mill 14 site,” and “Any alleged violations of any regulations set by [the Air Quality Management District] 15 for the mill,” respectively. From 2000 to 2002, GP burned “municipal wood waste” containing 16 plastics and other materials and contaminants associated with municipal landfills, which resulted in 17 dioxin contamination for which GP was fined by the Air Quality Management District. To testify 18 about the two deposition topics, GP produced Mr. Hilarides. 19 The City argues that he was not adequately prepared for the deposition because during it, he 20 testified that he did not have any knowledge about the suppliers of the municipal wood waste that 21 GP burned and had not reviewed several internal GP documents (which GP produced to the City in 22 discovery) that discussed how much of the fuel burned was municipal wood waste. GP argues that 23 neither of the deposition topics put it on notice that its witness would need to know about the 24 specific suppliers of the municipal wood waste. Instead, GP argues, the topics asked about the types 25 of materials burned, and Mr. Hilarides testified about that. 26 Given the number of deposition topics, GP’s reading of the topic to include only the materials 27 (as opposed to their source) was reasonable. As the court said at the hearing, it makes sense that GP 28 would read the topic fairly literally given that it had to prepare for 112 topics and the resulting C 12-02797 WHO (LB) ORDER 4 1 reality that only a short period of time was available for any given topic. That being said, the City 2 articulated its reasons on the record for wanting information about the source. Mr. Hilarides has to 3 testify about other topics anyway. With GP’s agreement and the parties’ agreement that depositions 4 would be in Atlanta, everyone agreed to the additional deposition time. 5 6 The court orders additional deposition time of no more than four hours for all topics as to Mr. Hilarides. GP and the City’s third dispute is about GP’s corporate witness’s testimony about Topic No. 50, 9 which asked GP to testify about “Any discussions with TRC regarding the Phase I and Phase II site 10 investigations, including whether the dioxins and/or the ponds at the mill site should be discussed in 11 the Phase I and Phase II site investigations.” TRC was GP’s environmental consultant that 12 For the Northern District of California D. GP and the City's Third 4/2/2014 Letter (ECF 153) 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 conducted two environmental site assessments (“ESAs”). During the consultant’s deposition, the 13 consultant testified that he was instructed by GP’s then-environmental project manager for the mill 14 site, Julie Raming, not to investigate the mill site for dioxins or the mill site’s ponds for 15 contamination. This interests the City because it says GP subsequently represented that the ESAs 16 indicated that there was little contamination at the mill site. 17 GP designated Mr. Davis, one of its in-house attorneys, to testify about this topic. When asked 18 about Ms. Raming’s instruction to GP’s consultant, Mr. Davis testified that he had no knowledge 19 about it. But when asked about how he prepared for the deposition, he stated that Ms. Raming 20 (along with Hunton & Williams LLP, which represents both GP and Ms. Raming, who is now 21 retired) participated in the preparation but that her conversation with the consultant never came up. 22 He also testified that he probably should have asked her about the conversation during his 23 preparation. 24 By failing to address the conversation during Mr. Davis’s preparation, the City argues that GP 25 did not fulfill its duty to properly prepare him to testify about the topic. GP argues that it had no 26 obligation to prepare Mr. Davis to testify about specific conversations between anyone and that he 27 provided more than enough testimony about the topic. 28 For the reasons discussed on the record, GP must prepare Mr. Davis, and the City has an C 12-02797 WHO (LB) ORDER 5 1 additional hour to depose him. 2 E. GP and the City's Fourth 4/2/2014 Letter (ECF No. 154) 3 GP and the City’s fourth dispute is about GP’s corporate witness's testimony about Topic No. 9, 4 which asked GP to testify about “The calculation and determination of GP’s reserves for accounting 5 purposes with regard to its environmental liabilities at the former Fort Bragg mill site.” At the 6 deposition, GP allowed its witness, Mr. Hilarides, to testify about how GP generally sets reserves, 7 but prohibited him from testifying about the amounts of the reserve or how the reserve was 8 calculated. approximation of future expenses required to clean up a site and to litigate about it. GP says that the 11 reserves have no bearing upon which parties caused the contamination at the mill site, how much 12 For the Northern District of California GP argues that its reserves are not relevant to this action because they are only a preliminary 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 money was spent cleaning it up, or how the liability for it should be allocated. GP also contends that 13 the reserves are protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine because they reveal 14 the thoughts and opinions of GP’s legal counsel and were developed in anticipation of litigation. 15 The City argues that the reserves were established for accounting and business purposes, no 16 attorneys were involved in the setting of the reserve amounts, and were not prepared in anticipation 17 of any litigation. 18 As the parties conceded on the record, any relevance here is about actual information about 19 contamination. That is regular discovery. If there is attorney work product or privileged 20 information, GP must follow the procedures in the court’s standing order about asserting privilege. 21 II. THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE 2008 COMPUTER CRASH (ECF No. 155) 22 Last month, the City informed GP that a “computer crash” occurred in 2008 that wiped out all of 23 the City’s emails at that time. According to the City, none of the date was recoverable or backed-up, 24 and all of the affected equipment, including the malfunctioning server, was disposed of. Not 25 surprisingly, GP wants to find out more about this, so it sent the City a draft Rule 30(b)(6) 26 deposition notice seeking the City’s testimony about the loss of the data. GP proposed that this Rule 27 30(b)(6) deposition be in addition to the already-planned Rule 30(b)(6) of the City on the 28 substantive issues of this case. The City does not dispute that GP should be able to depose it about C 12-02797 WHO (LB) ORDER 6 1 the loss of the data, and it is not refusing to produce a witness on the topic. The City does, however, 2 disagree with having a separate Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the topic. It believes that the computer 3 crash and the substantive issues for this case can all be discussed in a single Rule 30(b)(6) 4 deposition. 5 The court orders the same informal meet-and-confer with technical experts that it ordered 6 previously. On this record, the court does not order additional deposition time. If the meet-and- 7 confer reveals a more robust landscape that GP will need more time to look into, the parties must 8 confer and try to settle on additional reasonable time. If they cannot agree, they must contact the 9 court. III. THE DISPUTE ABOUT DOCUMENTS GP HAS WITHHELD AS PRIVILEGED (ECF 11 No. 156) 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 On April 7, 2014, GP and the City filed a letter describing a dispute about GP’s withholding of 13 certain documents as protected by the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, GP has withheld a 14 certain number of emails because they were between one of GP’s three outside consultants and one 15 of GP’s two in-house attorneys. The City says that one of the attorneys, Carol Stephens, already 16 testified that she never acted for GP in her capacity as an attorney; instead, she worked as GP’s 17 director of real estate at all relevant times. The City also says that GP’s other attorney, Mr. Davis, 18 testified that he was not involved with the mill site until late 2005 or early 2006 and that he was only 19 ever copied on emails to or from the outside consultants so that he would kept in the loop, so to 20 speak. The City also argues that GP nevertheless has waived the privilege, as it has already 21 produced numerous emails between the consultants and these two attorneys. GP does not appear to 22 challenge the City’s arguments but instead says that it wants the court to conduct an in camera 23 review of the withheld documents at issue in this letter and all future letters (which GP suggests are 24 forthcoming). 25 On this record, it appears that Ms. Stephens’s emails are not privileged or work product. The 26 court discussed its privilege review procedures and the need for the parties to do their work before 27 raising disputes like this or suggesting in camera review. 28 C 12-02797 WHO (LB) ORDER 7 1 CONCLUSION 2 The court grants the requests for additional deposition time. This disposes of ECF Nos. 150 to 3 4 5 156. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 17, 2014 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 12-02797 WHO (LB) ORDER 8

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?