Carroll v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 183

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 179 2/7/17 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KELLY CARROLL, ET AL.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-02321-EMC (KAW)

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER REGARDING 2/7/17 JOINT
LETTER

v.
9
10

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 179

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On February 7, 2017, the parties filed their eighth joint discovery letter, which concerns

13

Plaintiffs’ entire Request for Production of Documents (Set Four), and have requested that the

14

discovery dispute be provided expedited review. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 179.) The Court notes that

15

the parties have provided no basis for requiring an expedited review. Judge Chen did not suggest

16

that the parties are entitled to an expedited review of all discovery disputes. Moreover, given the

17

number of letters filed in this matter, and the arguments presented therein, the Court is concerned

18

that both sides have alternated in taking untenable positions regarding discovery rather than

19

engaging in good faith meet and confer efforts as required by the Northern District’s Guidelines

20

for Professional Conduct.

21

Notwithstanding, here, Plaintiffs’ Fourth Set seeks “documents provided by Wells Fargo to

22

various governmental agencies that in 2016 undertook formal or informal inquiries arising out of

23

sales practices of the company that led Wells Fargo employees to work off-the-clock and engage

24

in unlawful practices.” (Joint Letter at 2-3.) Wells Fargo is objecting to Plaintiff’s entire Fourth

25

Set, which violates the Court’s requirement that the parties identify the specific, disputed requests

26

at issue. (See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) The parties cannot sidestep this

27

requirement by advancing vague positions that put the onus on the Court to review the

28

reasonableness of the individual requests and the sufficiency of the subsequent responses. And the

1

Court declines to do so.
Based on a cursory review, Plaintiffs, even when taking into account the purported

2
3

narrowing of the requests, appear to be engaging in a fishing expedition. (See Joint Letter at 3.)

4

To the undersigned’s knowledge, at issue in this case is whether service side employees were

5

working off-the-clock or during meal periods. The unauthorized opening of accounts, the decision

6

to eliminate sales goals or quotas, and the culpability of senior level executives, therefore, goes far

7

beyond what is permitted under Rule 26. (See Joint Letter at 3.) To the extent that Plaintiffs seek

8

documents pertaining to this information, the request is denied.
Regarding the remaining “narrowed requests,” the parties shall meet and confer and

9

identify the specific requests that continue to be in dispute, and they should attempt to resolve

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

those disputes without further court intervention. Only after those efforts have been exhausted,

12

should the parties contemplate filing another joint discovery letter. Any future joint letters shall

13

be formatted to comply with the Court’s Standing Order:
A. Request No. 3

14

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

15

Plaintiff’s Position

16

[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position is

17
18

deficient and the relief requested.]

19

Defendant’s Position
[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]

20

B. Request No. 4

21

[Summarize the issue and reproduce the request.]

22

Plaintiff’s Position

23

[Plaintiff’s position outlining why Defendant’s response or position is

24
25

deficient and the relief requested.]

26

Defendant’s Position
[Defendant’s rationale as to why it has fully responded to the request, etc.]

27
28

///
2

1

(See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Compliance with the format provided will

2

facilitate the Court’s resolution of any remaining disputes, as the parties will be addressing the

3

same issues. Additionally, for each request for production, the parties should address Rule 26’s

4

proportionality requirement.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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
3