Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Filing
152
DISCOVERY ORDER re 142 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re ESI Document Review Process. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 8, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
STEVE RABIN, ET AL.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
DISCOVERY ORDER
v.
9
Re: ECF No. 142
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,
10
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No.16-cv-02276-JST
12
13
On August 1, 2017, the parties filed a joint discovery brief regarding the timing for their
14
ESI document review process. ECF No. 142. The parties have agreed to the ESI process itself.
15
Id. at 1.1
The Court summarizes the dispute as follows. Plaintiffs want ESI discovery to begin on a
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
rolling basis from August to October at the same time that the TAR model is iteratively refined
and checked for accuracy (and as privileged documents are removed). Id. at 4. This timeline,
Plaintiffs argue, will allow them to use the ESI discovery in their conditional certification motion.
Defendant’s response is two-fold. First, Defendant claims that Plaintiffs are not entitled to ESI
discovery prior to conditional certification. Id. at 5. Second, Defendant claims that the ESI
process cannot be completed in the timeframe suggested by Plaintiffs. Id.
The Court disagrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any ESI discovery to
23
prepare their conditional certification motion. As an initial matter, the Court places little weight
24
on statements made by counsel in their many discovery letters that might indicate whether the
25
26
27
28
1
Under the proposed process, “PwC will employ H5’s TAR process, a process incorporating both
linguistic and statistical modeling, on the set of documents culled in by the search terms (the
Review Set) for the purpose of identifying responsive documents within that set.” Id. at 1. TAR
stands for technology-assisted review.”
1
parties thought that ESI discovery would begin before or after the motion. Although concessions
2
or agreements made in discovery correspondence are not irrelevant, in a case of this magnitude,
3
the Court expects that the parties’ positions may shift over time as new information comes to light.
Nor does the caselaw cited by the parties clearly answer whether Plaintiffs may receive
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ESI discovery before conditional certification. In their back and forth, neither party cites a Ninth
Circuit decision, or even a case from this district. And, at the risk of belaboring the point, the
Court explains why none of the out-of-district cases provide a definitive answer on the appropriate
scope of pre-certification discovery. In Dallas v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., the court remarked
that “some document production” had been completed pre-certification. No. 09-14596, 2012 WL
424878, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2012). What “some” means is left unexplained. Similarly, in
Pines v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., the court references various letters that defendants must have
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
produced before the certification motion, but does not indicate whether other documents were also
12
produced and, if so, how many. No. SACV89-631AHS(RWRX), 1992 WL 92398, at *4 (C.D.
13
14
Cal. Feb. 25, 1992). Defendant’s lead case, Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, actually has two
orders that discuss ESI and related discovery. In the first, issued before a certification motion had
15
been filed, the Court ordered the parties to “produce ESI on a rolling basis.” Moore v. Publicis
16
Groupe, 287 F.R.D. 182, 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). In the second,2 however, the Court “remind[ed]
17
plaintiffs that they are only entitled to discovery related to either the named plaintiffs or to
18
company policies to support a motion (not yet filed, much less granted) for class certification;
19
plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery about individual potential class members until plaintiffs
20
have moved for and been granted class certification.” Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 868 F.
21
Supp. 2d 137, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Da Silva therefore suggests that some ESI discovery may be
22
appropriate, but does not define how much. Finally, in Chen v. Ampco System Parking, all the
23
court did was reject the plaintiffs’ request to “require a carte blanche production of all documents
24
from [various similar] state cases.” No. 08 Civ. 0422, 2009 WL 2496729, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug.
25
14, 2009). That is not the type of discovery at issue here.
At bottom, although Plaintiffs are not entitled to complete discovery before their collective
26
27
2
28
Further muddying the waters, these comments about discovery were in the context of an order
denying a motion to recuse.
2
1
is conditionally certified, the Court sees no reason to prevent them from obtaining and using ESI
2
discovery to support their motion.3 Nor has any party cited a case that clearly prohibits them
3
from doing so.
4
That brings the Court to the second question: is it even possible for Defendant to begin ESI
5
production on a rolling basis starting in August? Defendant argues that the various “in-depth steps
6
7
8
9
10
required to” implement the ESI process make Plaintiffs’ timeframe unreasonable. ECF No. 142 at
7. While the Court understands that the H5 process is complicated, Defendant has not convinced
the Court that the “in-depth steps” require delaying the start of document production until
December 2017. The parties appear to be on the verge of an agreement about search terms, so that
is not a basis for delay. Id. Nor is there persuasive evidence that the development of the TAR
models will take months, rather than weeks. Defendant also suggests that validating the models’
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
results may reveal a flaw that necessitates additional work. But the Court will not set a lengthy
12
schedule based on the possibility of future problems that have yet to arise, particularly given
13
14
15
16
Defendant’s claim that the “TAR process is capable of achieving an exceptionally high level of
accuracy.” Id. The Court also realizes that the TAR process requires attorney review of a few
thousand documents. But again, with appropriate resources devoted to this matter, there is no
reason why that task cannot be completed within the next few weeks.
17
Simply put, negotiations over ESI discovery have already consumed several months of the
18
parties’ time. Although Plaintiffs’ proposed timetable is aggressive, it is not unreasonable. The
19
Court orders Defendant to begin production of ESI discovery this month if possible, but no later
20
than September 1, 2017.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 8, 2017
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
3
28
The documents PwC has produced so far, while not inconsequential, do not constitute
meaningful discovery given the size and complexity of this case.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?