Fenerjian v. Nong Shim Company, Ltd et al

Filing 290

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 289 Discovery Letter Brief. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEPHEN FENERJIAN, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-04115-WHO (DMR)

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

9
10

NONG SHIM COMPANY, LTD, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 289

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On January 29, 2016, Plaintiffs and Defendants Nongshim Co., Ltd. and Nongshim

13

America, Inc. (collectively, “Nongshim”) filed a discovery letter regarding the deadline for

14

Nongshim to complete its production of custodial electronically stored information (“ESI”).

15

[Docket No. 289]. The court finds that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral

16

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

17
18
19

For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Nongshim to complete its ESI
custodial production is granted in part.
On December 16, 2014, the Hon. William H. Orrick set January 31, 2016 as the deadline

20

for completion of non-expert discovery. Docket No. 127. On December 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed

21

a motion requesting that the court extend the case deadlines by nine months. Docket No. 252.

22

Defendants (including Nongshim) opposed Plaintiffs’ request, representing to the court that they

23

were producing custodial documents on a rolling basis, with the “entire production expected to be

24

completed by the end of January 2016.” Defendants instead proposed a two month extension.

25

Defs.’ Opp. to Mot. to Extend Deadlines [Docket No. 264] at 13. The court extended the case

26

management schedule by roughly three months, and ordered April 29, 2016 as the last day for

27

non-expert discovery. Id.

28

On January 26, 2016, Nongshim informed Plaintiffs that it would not complete its

1

production by January 31, 2016, but anticipated that it would substantially complete its custodial

2

production by February 12, 2016. Plaintiffs now move the court to order Nongshim to complete

3

all electronic document production, with metadata, by January 31, 2016 on the basis that

4

Nongshim represented to the court that it would do so. Nongshim argues that it provided January

5

31, 2016 as a target date, rather than an agreed-upon deadline.

6

It is true that Nongshim did not promise that it would complete all discovery production by

7

January 31, 2016. However, in arguing for a shorter continuance for case deadlines, Nongshim

8

represented to the court that it had “started producing custodial documents on a rolling basis, with

9

the entire production expected to be completed by the end of January 2016.” Opp. to Mot. to
Extend Deadlines at 13; see also Goodwin Decl. [Docket No. 265] at ¶ 11(“the Nongshim

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants anticipate completing production of custodial documents by the end of January

12

2016”). Nongshim has changed that representation and now states that it is diligently working to

13

review its custodial documents for substantial completion of production by February 12, 2016.

14

Judge Orrick was entitled to rely on counsel’s representations in making adjustments to the

15

case schedule. Had Nongshim provided a more accurate estimate, it is possible that Judge Orrick

16

would have ordered a longer continuance. In light of Nongshim’s representation to the court, as

17

well as the short period of time remaining before the close of discovery, Nongshim is hereby

18

ordered to complete its ESI custodial production by February 8, 2016.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 1, 2016
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2