Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. PB&A, Inc.

Filing 41

ORDER GRANTING 30 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND DENYING 32 MOTION TO QUASH by Judge William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

5

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION AND
DENYING MOTION TO QUASH

v.

6
7

Case No. 16-cv-01152-WHO

PB&A, INC.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 30, 32
Defendant.

8
9

On May 18, 2016, defendant PB&A, Inc., served nonparty Arup North America, Ltd., with

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

a subpoena duces tecum. On August 30, 2016, PB&A filed a motion to compel Arup to produce

12

the requested materials, arguing Arup’s initial production was inadequate. Motion to Compel

13

(Dkt. No. 30). Arup responded by filing a Motion to Quash PB&A’s Record Subpoena. (Dkt. No.

14

32).

15

At the hearing on October 5, 2016, I explained that the documents sought are obviously

16

relevant to this action and seemingly important, the delay by Arup in responding of 4 and 1/2

17

months is unacceptable and threatens to impact the trial schedule in this case, and PB&A’s

18

unilateral refusal to meet and confer with Arup’s counsel in August (who also clarified that Arup

19

had produced some 1500 pages in seven PDFs, rather than seven documents, as PB&A had

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

represented), was both inexcusable (notwithstanding the duration of the parties’ communications)
and self-defeating. I ORDERED that the parties immediately meet and confer on the 18th floor of
this courthouse to agree on a plan for production, which they did.
For the reasons discussed at the hearing, PB&A’s motion to compel is GRANTED and
Arup’s motion to quash is DENIED. Arup did not waive its objections or its ability to withhold
documents based on privilege. Arup is ORDERED to produce the responsive materials, on a
rolling basis if necessary, and a privilege log by the date I proposed that was subsequently agreedto by the parties, October 31, 2016. Arup’s request for an award of the attorney’s fees it incurred
in responding to the motion to compel is DENIED.

1

I decline to determine whether some portion of Arup’s costs of production should be

2

shifted to PB&A at this time. If a renewed request is made, in balancing proportionality I will

3

consider several factors, including the actual cost of production, the efforts PB&A makes to

4

accommodate legitimate concerns expressed by Arup, the materiality of the particular documents

5

produced (particularly in light of the documents already produced in the PDFs), and the relative

6

resources of the parties.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 6, 2016
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District 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
2