Federal Trade Commission v. DIRECTV, Inc. et al

Filing 131

Discovery Order re: 127 Discovery Letter Brief regarding FTC RFP 12 and 13. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/4/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 127

9
10

DIRECTV, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On March 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery dispute letter regarding the FTC’s

14

Requests for Production No. 12 (“All consumer complaints regarding any of the Material Terms of

15

the Service.”) and No. 13 (“All Documents relating to consumer complaints regarding any of the

16

Material Terms of the Service.”). Dkt. No. 113. Having reviewed the parties’ positions, the Court

17

found the FTC’s requests relevant but overbroad and ordered the parties to further meet and confer

18

in an effort to narrow the scope of the requests. Dkt. No. 117. If unable to reach a resolution, the

19

Court ordered the parties to file an updated letter setting forth a summary of each party’s final

20

substantive position and their final proposed compromise on each issue.

21
22

Unable to resolve these matters, the parties filed an updated letter on March 31, 2016. Dkt.
No. 127. Having reviewed the updated letter, the Court ORDERS as follows:

23

1)

RFP No. 12

24

Although DIRECTV maintains its RIO system does not contain consumer complaints, the

25

FTC has shown that, at a minimum, it likely contains relevant information such as customers who

26

call DIRECTV to express concern about monthly cost increases. Accordingly, the Court finds the

27

FTC’s proposal an appropriate compromise and therefore ORDERS DIRECTV to produce a

28

chronological list of RIO files since January 1, 2007 (the Complaint period) by April 11, 2016.

1

The FTC shall then select a random sample from that list, and DIRECTV shall produce the files

2

within 14 days of the selection. With regard to DIRECTV’s concern for protecting consumers’

3

personal information, the FTC has stated it does not seek such information, and therefore

4

DIRECTV need not produce it. If DIRECTV seeks to produce consumers’ personal information

5

in order to avoid the burden of redacting it, DIRECTV can do so under the safeguards of the

6

governing Protective Order, as indicated in the Court’s March 8 Order.

7

2)

RFP No. 13

8

Given that the FTC’s search proposal could result in millions of documents, the Court

9

finds it reasonable for DIRECTV to instead produce the consumer complaint reports it uses to
track consumer complaints. DIRECTV shall produce these reports by April 11, 2016. If the FTC

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

still contends further production is required after review of these reports, the parties shall again

12

meet and confer in compliance with the undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: April 4, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2