Ang et al v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Filing 89

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE, Dkt. No. 86 . The hearing scheduled for 6/11/2014 01:00 PM is vacated. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 6/9/2014. (lmh, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 11 ALEX ANG and LYNN STREIT, 12 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 13 14 Case No. 13-cv-01196 WHO (NC) ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE Plaintiffs Re: Dkt. No. 86 v. 15 BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 The parties have filed a joint discovery statement in which Bimbo Bakeries asks the 19 Court to extend certain deadlines set by the Court in its May 14, 2014, discovery order. 20 Dkt. Nos. 80, 86. The Court finds that this dispute is suitable for resolution without a 21 hearing and vacates the hearing set for June 11, 2014. After considering the parties’ joint 22 statement, their proposed orders, as well as the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY 23 ORDERED THAT: 24 25 26 1. Deadline to Produce Documents Related to Pre-Class Period Discovery and Products Not Sold in California In previous discovery disputes presented by the parties, Bimbo Bakeries argued that 27 discovery in this case should be limited in scope to information from the class period and 28 should exclude products Bimbo Bakeries alleges were not sold in California. See Dkt. No. Case No. 13-cv-01196 WHO (NC) ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 1 80. The Court rejected these arguments and ordered Bimbo Bakeries to amend its discovery 2 responses and produce all responsive, non-privileged documents by May 28, 2014. Id. 3 Bimbo Bakeries now requests a 90-day extension of the May 28 deadline as it relates 4 to pre-class period discovery and products not sold in California (parts 1 and 3 of the 5 Court’s May 14 order). Bimbo Bakeries asserts that the deadline set by the Court should be 6 modified because the parties’ prior briefing and arguments “were focused on . . . 7 discoverability . . . and did not address e-discovery issues, much less the amount of time 8 that it would take for BBUSA to actually produce responsive documents.” Dkt. No. 86 at 2. 9 This problem is, to a large extent, of Bimbo Bakeries’ own making. Before the Court set 10 the May 28 deadline, it informed the parties of its tentative ruling to order the disputed 11 discovery and gave the parties a further opportunity to meet and confer and propose 12 limitations on the discovery based on the anticipated burden and benefit. Dkt. No. 72. 13 Rather than investigating what specific efforts and time would be required to produce 14 responsive documents and raise any such issues before the Court resolved this dispute, 15 Bimbo Bakeries chose to rely on blanket assertions that no discovery was appropriate and 16 waited until the Court ruled against it. Bimbo Bakeries’ failure to raise these issues earlier 17 is not a good cause for the requested extension. 18 Bimbo Bakeries further argues that the May 28 deadline is not workable because 19 “virtually all responsive information will exist within BBUSA’s electronic systems” and the 20 parties will need to meet and confer regarding an e-discovery protocol and search criteria. 21 Dkt. No. 86 at 2-3. Bimbo Bakeries’ asserted reasons for the 90-day extension, however, 22 amount to little more than general statements about “the complexities of e-discovery.” As 23 acknowledged in this District’s Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI, “[d]iscoverable 24 information today is mainly electronic.” This District has made available a model 25 Stipulated Order Re: Discovery of ESI, as well as guidelines that encourage parties to 26 discuss the preservation, collection, search, review, and production of ESI as early as 27 possible at the outset of the case. This case was filed on March 18, 2013. The Court is not 28 convinced that Bimbo Bakeries has shown diligence and good cause to justify the requested Case No. 13-cv-01196 WHO (NC) ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 2 e he j very ent, urt at 1 90-day extension. Based on th parties’ joint discov stateme the Cou finds tha a e s te, ends the Ma 28 deadline to July 14, 2014. ay 2 modest extension is appropriat and exte 3 Additionally, by June 16 2014, the parties mu file eithe a propose stipulate order , 6, e ust er ed ed ng overy and a proposed stipulated p s protective or rder, or a jo stateme oint ent 4 regardin ESI disco f p n es. 5 setting forth their positions on these issue 6 2. Deadl line to Prod duce Finan ncial Inform mation 7 Bi imbo Baker request an extension until Ju 18, 2014 to produc documen in ries ts une 4, ce nts ance with pa 2 of the May 14 ord regardin financial informatio and plain art der ng l on, ntiffs 8 complia ion. Dkt. No. 86 at 4. The reques extensi is grant N sted ion ted. 9 agree to the extensi 10 0 3. 11 1 Bi imbo Baker request an extension until Ju 10, 2014 to serve i supplem ries ts une 4, its mental Deadl line to Serv Supplem ve mental Disc covery Resp ponses es iffs’ interrogatories and documen requests, a plaintif agree to the nt and ffs 12 response to plainti 2 on. o. T ted on 13 extensio Dkt. No 86 at 4. The request extensio is granted. 3 14 4 4. Addit tional Disco overy Dispute 15 5 Th parties’ joint discov he j very stateme also ind ent dicates that the parties dispute whether B roduction of document should be limited to products a issue in th o ts e o at his 16 Bimbo Bakeries’ pr 6 a 014, rties must m and confer in an a meet attempt 17 case. Dkt. No. 86 at 3, 6. By June 23, 20 the par 7 ve agreement and file a jo discove statemen regarding this dispu a oint ery nt g ute. 18 to resolv their disa 8 19 9 An party ma object to this non-d ny ay o dispositive d discovery or rder within 14 days un n nder vil re 20 Federal Rule of Civ Procedur 72(a). 0 21 1 IT IS SO OR T RDERED. 22 2 Date: June 9, 2014 , ____ __________ __________ _____ Nath hanael M. C Cousins Unit States M ted Magistrate J Judge 23 3 24 4 25 5 26 6 27 7 28 8 Case No. 13-cv-0119 WHO (N 96 NC) ORDER RE: DISCO R OVERY DIS SPUTE 3

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?