Roe v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

Filing 78

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 75 , 76 Joint Discovery Letter Briefs. Defendant to furnish supplemental responses by 3/11/2016.(kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
JANE ROE,

7

Case No. 14-cv-00751-HSG (KAW)
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER REGARDING 2/22/16 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTERS; ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE

v.
9
FRITO-LAY, INC.,

10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 75 & 76

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
On January 27, 2016, Plaintiff Jane Roe filed a discovery letter brief, because Defendant

13
14

Frito-Lay did not participate in the drafting of the letter. (Letter, Dkt. No. 68 at 1.) The letter

15

related to allegedly deficient discovery responses served in October 2014. Id. On February 8,

16

2016, the undersigned terminated the letter, and ordered the parties to meet and confer. (Dkt. No.

17

70.) The parties were then directed to file joint letters that comply with the Court’s standing order

18

should they be unable to resolve any remaining disputes without court intervention. Id.

19

On February 22, 2016, the parties filed two, separate joint letters regarding Defendant’s

20

deficient responses to discovery.1 The first letter concerns Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s

21

Special Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, 8-10, and 20.2 (Joint Letter #1, Dkt. No. 75.) The second letter

22

concerns Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 6, 14-

23

16, 18-20, 23-25. (Joint Letter #2, Dkt. No. 76.)
On March 1, 2016, the Court held a telephonic phone conference with the parties.

24
25
1

26
27
28

The parties are admonished for their failure to lodge chambers copies of the joint letters as
required by Civil L.R. 5-1(e)(7). (See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 4.)
2
The parties included Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 23 in the letter, even though they appear to have
resolved any disputes pertaining to those requests. (Joint Letter #1 at 3.) Since these issues have
been resolved, the Court will not address them, but expects Defendant to fully respond as agreed
without undue delay.

DISCOVERY LETTERS

1
2

The Court’s standing order requires that a joint discovery letter contain, “[w]ith respect to

3

each issue relating to the unresolved dispute, a detailed summary of each party’s final substantive

4

position and their final proposed compromise on each issue, including relevant legal authority.”

5

(See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13(c).) Here, instead of addressing each

6

unresolved dispute, Defendant provided the same boilerplate “position” for every disputed request:

7

“Plaintiff has requested several different figures that would need to come from multiple different

8

sources, and Defendant is diligently working to ascertain precisely which portion of this

9

information is available or ascertainable, and will supplement its responses as soon as
practicable.” (See, e.g., Joint Letter #1 at 1.) This is not responsive to the individual requests at

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

issue nor does the rote response provide Defendant’s rationale for why it did not fully respond to

12

Plaintiff’s narrowed requests, i.e. why it continues to dispute the relevancy, breadth or meaning of

13

the discovery requests in dispute, which directly violates the Court’s standing order.
In addition, Defendant’s boilerplate responses to the requests for production of documents

14
15

directly contravene the Court’s standing order, which states:

16

In responding to requests for documents and materials under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34, all parties shall affirmatively state, in a written response
served on all other parties, the full extent to which they will produce
materials and shall, promptly after the production, confirm in
writing that they have produced all such materials so described that
are locatable after a diligent search of all locations at which such
materials might plausibly exist. It shall not be sufficient to object
and/or to state that “responsive” materials will be or have been
produced.

17
18
19
20
21

(Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 14)(emphasis added). Here, Defendant represents

22

that it is still searching for documents and will supplement “as soon as practicable.” This is

23

woefully deficient. There is no indication that Defendant has undertaken a diligent search, as

24

required by the federal rules, and Defendant cannot satisfy its discovery obligations by promising

25

to provide the information on a date uncertain. Furthermore, Defendant’s apparent refusal to

26

furnish a privilege log is indefensible.3 (Joint Letter #2 at 5.)

27
3

28

Defendant does not address the privilege log issue, because it opted for the same, deficient
boilerplate response. Thus, the Court assumes that Defendant refused to furnish a privilege log.
2

1

On the merits, the Court finds that all of the disputed interrogatories and requests for

2

production of documents are relevant and reasonable as narrowed in scope by Plaintiff as set forth

3

in the joint letters. Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to supplement its responses to Special

4

Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, 8-10, and 20, and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 6, 14-16,

5

18-20, 23-25, on or before March 11, 2016. Specifically, in supplementing its responses to the

6

requests for production of documents, Defendant shall produce all responsive, non-privileged

7

documents by that date, and, if applicable, a privilege log for any documents it believes are

8

justifiably withheld. (Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 20).

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 1, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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
3