Dodson et al v. Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. et al

Filing 229

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 213 Motion for Clarification re: 191 Discovery Minute Order. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALVIN TODD, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-04984-JST (MEJ)

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF MINUTE ORDER

v.
9
TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 191, 213

Defendants.

12
13

Pending before the Court is Defendants Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. and Tempur-

14

Pedic North America, LLC’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Clarification of Minute Order. Dkt. No.

15

213. The matter at issue relates to a subpoena duces tecum served on Google, Inc. to obtain

16

information regarding web analytic data, specifically the number of “hits” on a webpage

17

maintained by Allen Stewart P.C. (Plaintiffs’ counsel) regarding this lawsuit. As background, on

18

March 8, 2016, Allen Stewart P.C. filed a letter raising two questions:

19

Question 1: Once the in-person meet and confer session has
taken place, should the motion to quash be filed as a Motion, or
as a Joint Letter that is no longer than 5 pages as in Judge
James’ Discovery Standing Order (Revised February 19,
2014)?

20
21
22

Question 2: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, an objection must
be filed within 14 days of service, so I am currently against a
deadline that is coming up this Thursday, March 10, 2016. If
the parties cannot complete the in-person meet and confer by
then, in what format can the motion to quash be filed, while still
maintaining timeliness on our objection?

23
24
25
26
27
28

Dkt. No. 190.
The Court issued the following Minute Order in response:
Order by Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James re [190] Letter re

Procedural Questions Regarding Filing of Motion to Quash.
The Court responds to counsel’s questions as follows: (1) As
indicated in the Discovery Standing Order, if unable to resolve
their dispute after good faith meet and confer efforts in person,
all discovery disputes are to be submitted in the form of a joint
letter, including non-parties, (2) Counsel’s letter shall constitute
an objection pursuant to Rule 45. No further filing is required.

1
2
3
4
5

Dkt. No. 191

6

Defendants now request clarification of this Order for three reasons. First, Defendants

7

maintain the Court improperly treated the letter as an “objection,” which is not an appropriate

8

response to a subpoena duces tecum. Mot. at 4 (citing Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633,

9

636 (C.D. Cal. 2005)). The Court understands Defendants’ concern and clarifies as follows. The
Court construes the second question in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s March 8 letter as a request for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

additional time to object or request to quash, and the Minute Order granted counsel’s request.

12

Thus, any subsequent objection or request to quash filed concerning this matter would be timely.

13

Second, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted no grounds for the objection, and

14

thus Defendants are left in a position of having to address an objection without knowing the basis.

15

Id. Defendants state they are uncertain as to which party has the burden in this instance to bring

16

the matter before the Court and initiate the joint letter briefing. Id. The Court responds as

17

follows. As Plaintiffs seek to quash the subpoena, they are responsible for initiating the joint letter

18

briefing. Further, the Discovery Standing Order applies to nonparties, and its provisions would

19

therefore apply to Google, Inc., should it become involved.

20

Finally, Defendants request the Court clarify its ruling regarding the in-person meet and

21

confer and whether or not it applies in this situation. Id. at 5. Defendants state this is their third

22

attempt to obtain this information, having previously attempted to obtain it from another web

23

vendor of Allen Stewart P.C. and Allen Stewart P.C. itself. Id. In both instances, counsel for

24

Defendants met in person with counsel for Plaintiffs—the first occurred on September 18, 2015

25

and the second occurred on February 18, 2016—and both parties agree that a third in person meet

26

and confer will be futile. Id. Under these circumstances, the Court agrees that the parties have

27
28
2

1

met their obligations to meet and confer on this issue.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

Dated: May 2, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See Civ. L.R. 1-5(n) (“‘Meet and confer’ or ‘confer’ means to communicate directly and discuss
in good faith the issue(s) required under the particular Rule or order. Unless these Local Rules
otherwise provide or a Judge otherwise orders, such communication may take place by telephone.
The mere sending of a written, electronic, or voice-mail communication, however, does not satisfy
a requirement to ‘meet and confer’ or to ‘confer.’ Rather, this requirement can be satisfied only
through direct dialogue and discussion – either in a face to face meeting or in a telephone
conversation. ”
3