Fishman v. Tiger Natural Gas, Inc.
Filing
357
DISCOVERY ORDER by Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson: denying #342 Discovery Letter Brief; denying #343 Discovery Letter Brief; denying #346 Discovery Letter Brief; finding as moot #347 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part #348 Discovery Letter Brief.(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
EMILY FISHMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
Re: Dkt. Nos. 342, 343
TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
DISCOVERY ORDER
v.
9
10
Case No. 17-cv-05351-WHA (TSH)
12
13
The parties have filed five discovery letter briefs. ECF Nos. 342, 343, 346, 347 and 348.
14
The Court held oral argument on December 28, 2018 and now issues this order.
15
A.
ECF No. 342
16
1.
17
For these rogs, the parties agree that Dyet will need to examine documents before any
Rogs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 20, 23, 24
18
further information can be provided. The Court and the parties discussed when Dyet can serve
19
amended responses. The parties agreed that Dyet will serve amended responses on January 8,
20
2019. Thereafter if Plaintiffs remain unsatisfied with Dyet’s responses, the parties should file a
21
joint letter brief in sufficient time for the Court to resolve the dispute and any amended responses
22
to be served by January 31, 2019. It is too late to file letter briefs raising new discovery disputes.
23
However, the Court already ordered Dyet to amend these rog responses, see ECF No. 294, so a
24
further letter brief concerning them is not a new discovery issue but relates to the enforcement of
25
an existing Court order.
26
2.
27
Dyet’s amended response is deficient. The Court already ordered Dyet to answer this
28
Rog 15
interrogatory, ECF No. 294, and since the amended response contains no information at all, Dyet
1
is in violation of the Court’s order. The Court ORDERS Dyet to amend his response again by
2
January 15, 2019. In the next amended response, any citation to documents must specify them by
3
Bates number. Dyet may no longer merely state that he is investigating or doing a search for
4
documents – he must provide the best substantive answer he can to the rog.
5
3.
6
Dyet must serve his initial disclosures by January 18, 2019.
7
4.
8
Plaintiffs request “that this Court allow additional Requests for Admission solely for
9
Initial Disclosures
Request for more RFAs
authentication of documents.” However, Judge Alsup ruled that “[w]ith respect to non-expert
discovery, no new discovery request may be propounded effective immediately.” ECF No. 274 at
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
2. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED.
12
B.
ECF No. 343
Plaintiffs served their second set of RFPs on Dyet on November 18, 2018. His responses
13
14
were due on December 18, 2018, which is after the December 14, 2018 fact discovery cutoff.
15
Accordingly, Dyet need not produce documents in response to these untimely RFPs. There was
16
no reason for Plaintiffs to delay this long in serving these RFPs. Plaintiffs previously served Dyet
17
with their first set of RFPs in July – five months before the fact discovery cutoff – and they have
18
offered to reason why they could not have also timely served their second set of RFPs. The
19
motion to compel is DENIED.
20
C.
21
ECF No. 346
Plaintiffs seek a second deposition of Tiger’s Controller, Jennifer St. Clair, and its
22
President, Lori Johnson. Plaintiffs state that Tiger produced draft scripts, advertising materials,
23
advertising strategy materials, two versions of the Master Sheet, and enrollment data after
24
Plaintiffs deposed these witnesses. In addition, the Court has ordered Tiger to produce a key or
25
legend that would explain the rate codes, see ECF No. 335, which Plaintiffs state Tiger has not yet
26
produced.
27
28
As to the scripts, Master Sheets, and key or legend about the rate codes, the Court has
already ordered the re-deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on a broad scope of topics and a re2
1
deposition of Rachel Harvick Strealy in light of those late productions. ECF No. 335. At this
2
point Plaintiffs are just piling on. Further re-depositions on St. Clair and Johnson on those topics
3
are duplicative and excessive and are DENIED.
The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs may re-depose Johnson on the limited subjects of
4
5
marketing strategy and sales material documents that were produced after her deposition. The
6
Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs may re-depose St. Clair on the limited subjects of documents
7
produced after her deposition about enrollment data, payments to Dyet, and her communications
8
with Dyet. Both depositions shall be completed by January 18, 2019. Pursuant to Judge Alsup's
9
Supplemental Standing Order, Tiger shall bear all expense of these depositions.
10
D.
ECF No. 347
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
1.
12
There is no dispute for the Court to resolve.
13
2.
14
Plaintiffs state in the letter brief that “[t]o the extent that the ‘Master Sheets’ are
15
incomplete, Plaintiffs request an order that Tiger produce all ‘Master Sheets’ containing class
16
members’ information.” From this, it was unclear if there is a dispute for the Court to resolve,
17
although a request for every iteration of a constantly updated spreadsheet appears unreasonable.
18
At oral argument, however, Plaintiffs clarified that they are actually seeking the most recent
19
version of each type of Master Sheet. Tiger represents that it has produced those. Accordingly,
20
there is no dispute for the Court to resolve.
TPV Recordings
Master Sheet
21
3.
22
There is no dispute for the Court to resolve.
23
E.
Payment Information
ECF No. 348
24
1.
25
Plaintiffs state that on December 14, 2018, the last day of fact discovery, Tiger produced
Telemarketer Information
26
an incomplete Master Sheet, later supplemented on December 20, 2018, that has a column
27
containing the first and last names of the telemarketing agents who contacted members of the
28
putative class. Plaintiffs say they did not have this information previously, hindering their ability
3
1
to locate the telemarketers and depose them. Plaintiffs request an order that they be allowed to
2
take five additional depositions, including beyond their current limit of 10 and that they may take
3
the depositions after January 31, 2019 if necessary. Tiger states that it does not oppose Plaintiffs'
4
request to take additional depositions of CGC/ECC employees up to January 31, 2019 and within
5
the Plaintiffs’ limit of 10 depositions.
Tiger's position is reasonable. The January 31, 2019 deadline was ordered by Judge Alsup.
6
7
See ECF No. 274. The late discovery of the telemarketer names is unrelated to the number of
8
depositions that is reasonable and proportional to the needs of the case. Accordingly, the Court
9
ORDERS that Plaintiffs may depose additional CGC/ECC employees up to their limit of 10
10
depositions and no later than January 31.1
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
2.
12
Citing the late production of certain documents as well as accusations of incomplete
13
searches for documents, Plaintiffs “request that a third party be engaged to search Tiger’s servers,
14
databases, and email systems for ESI. Also, Plaintiffs request that the endeavor be commenced
15
immediately and at Tiger’s expense.” Plaintiffs state that the gist of the problem is that Tiger
16
maintains an H drive in which employees maintain folders of custodial documents. Apparently,
17
employees were instructed to search those folders on their own, and Plaintiffs maintain those
18
searches were inadequate, citing in particular the late production of electronic scripts and Master
19
Sheets (including telemarketer information contained on the Master Sheets). Tiger represents that
20
it has investigated this issue and determined that Strealy and Johnson did not properly search their
21
custodial files on the H drive. Tiger represents that it rectified this issue and produced additional
22
responsive documents by December 20, 2018. Tiger also offers to provide Plaintiffs with a list of
23
the individuals who searched each employee’s folder on the H drive and what search terms they
24
ran. Plaintiffs do not agree this remedy is sufficient, contending that Tiger located these errors
25
only in response to Plaintiffs pointing them out, which leaves Plaintiffs guessing if there could be
26
additional search errors.
Servers, Hard Drives, Databases and Email Systems
27
28
1
When this Court orders a witness re-deposed due to the late production of documents, that does
not count as an additional deposition toward Plaintiffs’ limit of 10.
4
1
The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ frustrations, but the extreme remedy they seek is
2
simply not appropriate for this case. As matters stand now, the Court has no basis other than
3
conjecture to think that there are any omissions in Tiger’s document productions. In addition, it
4
would be impossible to complete Plaintiffs’ requested endeavor by the January 31 deadline. See
5
ECF No. 274. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Tiger to inform Plaintiffs by January 4, 2019 of
6
the identities of the individuals who performed searches on employees’ folders on the H drive and
7
what search terms they used. Plaintiffs’ request is otherwise DENIED.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Dated: December 28, 2018
12
13
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?