Woolley et al v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc. et al

Filing 98

Amended Discovery Order. The amended order reflects that the seven-day period to complete the production is 8/24/2018, not 8/27/2018. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/17/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ALEJANDRO MARCEY, et al.,

Case No. 17-cv-01258-LB

Plaintiffs,

12

AMENDED DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

13
14

YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC., et al.,

15

Re: ECF No. 91, 96

Defendants.

16
17

The court held a discovery hearing on August 17, 2018 about the parties’ disputes in the letters

18

at ECF Nos. 91 and 96. The court ruled on the record and summarizes its rulings here.

19

1. RFP 5

20

The production will be complaints about transferability of PACE loans and fees that relate to

21

transferability.

22

2. RFP 7 and RFP 8

23

Ygrene does not need to run new ESI searches. If it has marketing and sales practice

24

documents in hand, it must produce them and cannot withhold production by grounds such as

25

“does not relate to transferability” (as discussed on the record).

26
27
28
ORDER – No. 17-cv-01258-LB 

1
2

3. RFP 9
For now, the production does not have to include email communications beyond those already

3

produced. Ygrene must give the plaintiffs a copy of the written agreement to exclude

4

communications.

5

4. Other matters

6
7
8

Ygrene said that it would produce the remaining production in seven days, meaning, by
August 24.
The depositions next week will not go forward unless the parties agree that they can. The
plaintiffs say that they cannot conduct depositions without the documents. The court is not in a

10

position to second-guess that determination. The plaintiffs will review the document production

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

and schedule a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as quickly as possible (for the reasons discussed on the

12

record). That will enable them to identify focused email searches from decision-makers and —

13

with Ygrene — run some test searches to identify volume and usefulness of the searches. The

14

plaintiffs have key depositions they want to take. The court directed the parties to confer on a

15

deposition schedule to take place as soon as is practicable, starting with the Rule 30(b)(6)

16

deponent and then the most relevant decision-maker. If subsequent email productions reveal areas

17

of inquiry that cannot satisfactorily be addressed through other witnesses, then the court will

18

probably allow a second half-day deposition. (That said, there might be sufficient illumination

19

through other depositions, depending on what the email productions look like and who the players

20

are.)

21
22
23
24

After the parties set their deposition schedule, they must confer on all deadlines and submit
either a joint proposal or a chart that reflects their differences.
The parties agreed to address their remaining disputes by reference to the court’s orders on the
disputes it was able to reach today.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: August 18, 2018
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
ORDER – No. 17-cv-01258-LB

2