Federal Trade Commission v. DIRECTV, Inc. et al

Filing 147

Discovery Order re: 146 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/9/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

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

Plaintiff,
7

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 146

8
9

DIRECTV, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On May 2, 2016, Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC (collectively, “DIRECTV”)

13

and Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a joint discovery letter regarding

14

DIRECTV’s Requests for Production of complaints from the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel system

15

(“Sentinel”) regarding DIRECTV competitors Dish Network, Comcast XFINITY, Cox

16

Communications, Verizon FIOS, Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications, and other

17

providers of cable or satellite television services (a total of ten companies). Dkt. No. 142. After

18

reviewing the parties’ positions, the Court found DIRECTV’s requests may be relevant, but they

19

were not proportional to the needs of the case. Dkt. No. 144. Bearing in mind the proportionality

20

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the Court noted that the parties did not show

21

any attempt to agree upon a more limited scope of production and they had not set forth their

22

proposed compromise on the issues in dispute, as required under the undersigned’s Discovery

23

Standing Order. Id. Thus, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine if they

24

are able to agree on a more limited production. Id.

25

On June 8, 2016, the parties filed an updated letter stating they have not been able to reach

26

an agreement. Dkt. No. 146. DIRECTV now proposes the FTC produce all consumer complaints

27

for three DIRECTV competitors (Comcast, DISH, and Charter)—as opposed to all ten

28

companies—noting the FTC has already run a query to identify the number of complaints for these

1

competitors, and the total is 231,802 (100,988 Comcast + 96,813 DISH + 34,001 Charter). Id. at

2

1. The FTC proposes producing random samples of consumer complaints for three companies of

3

DIRECTV’s choosing. Id. at 3. Under its proposal, DIRECTV can choose the sample from each

4

population, or it can let the FTC choose the sample. Id.

5

Having reviewed the parties’ positions, the Court finds the FTC’s sampling proposal more

6

closely comports with Rule 26’s demand for proportionality. Rule 26 provides that a party may

7

obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

8

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors to consider

9

include “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’
relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

12

likely benefit.” Id. Under Rule 26, “[t]he parties and the court have a collective responsibility to

13

consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Fed.

14

R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee notes (2015 amendments). Thus, there is “a shared

15

responsibility on all the parties to consider the factors bearing on proportionality before

16

propounding discovery requests, issuing responses and objections, or raising discovery disputes

17

before the courts.” Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., 2016 WL 736213, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25,

18

2016); Goes Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., 2016 WL 427369, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (citing

19

advisory committee notes for proposition that parties share a “collective responsibility” to

20

consider proportionality and requiring that “[b]oth parties . . . tailor their efforts to the needs of

21

th[e] case”).

22

Unlike DIRECTV’s proposal for a full-scale production of all Sentinel files for three

23

companies (totaling more than 200,000 files), sampling would achieve Rule 26’s demand for

24

proportionality. At this point, the relevance of these materials is largely speculative and a random

25

sample therefore gives DIRECTV what it seeks through these Requests for Production while

26

rendering the FTC’s burden reasonably proportional to the materials’ purported evidentiary value.

27

At the same time, the FTC’s proposal mirrors the Court’s April 4, 2016 Order mandating

28

DIRECTV to produce a random sample of consumer files from the company’s RIO database. See
2

1
2

Dkt. No. 31. Reciprocal production on this basis is appropriate.
However, DIRECTV agreed to reduce its request from ten to three companies if it obtained

3

all complaints for the three companies. As a random sample of three companies drastically alters

4

DIRECTV’s request and greatly reduces the FTC’s production burden, it may be appropriate for

5

the FTC to produce a random sample from other companies as well. Accordingly, the parties shall

6

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

7

determine which companies’ complaints the FTC shall produce as well as the appropriate sample

8

size for each company. If unable to agree, the parties shall file an updated joint letter.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: June 9, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3