Unified Accounting & Tax, LLP v. Rivera

Filing 36

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse re 34 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (agtlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2022)

Download PDF
Case 3:21-cv-10040-AGT Document 36 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 UNIFIED ACCOUNTING & TAX, LLP, 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE v. 10 GRETCHEN RIVERA, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 21-cv-10040-AGT Re: Dkt. No. 34 Defendant. 12 13 The parties have a discovery dispute concerning the adequacy of Gretchen Rivera’s 14 15 responses to UAT’s first set of ROGs and RFPs.1 The requests at issue seek information and 16 documents relating to Rivera’s relationships and communications with two third parties—Shift 17 Technologies (Rivera’s current employer and UAT’s client) and Farche Solutions (Rivera’s 18 boyfriend’s company). Rivera objected to several requests on the grounds that they are irrelevant, 19 vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, invasive of privacy rights, and/or seek confidential 20 information of third parties (i.e., Shift and Farche). UAT claims that it sent Rivera a “12-page 21 meet and confer letter” explaining why it believes her objections are meritless, but Rivera has not 22 provided a substantive response to that letter or otherwise supplemented her discovery responses. 23 Consequently, UAT asks the Court to strike Rivera’s objections and order her to “provide full and 24 complete responses and the requested documents forthwith.” 25 Rivera, in turn, asserts that she has “offered to amend some, if not all” of her discovery 26 responses, but only after consulting with counsel for Shift and Farche regarding confidentiality 27 28 1 Specifically at issue are Rivera’s responses to ROGs 2–4 and RFPs 1–2, 4–6, 8–11, 13–18. Case 3:21-cv-10040-AGT Document 36 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2 1 and privacy issues. Rivera reports that her counsel is in the process of conferring with Farche’s 2 attorney but has not yet had the opportunity to confer with Shift’s counsel due to scheduling 3 conflicts. Rivera thus requests additional time to finish those discussions and to supplement her 4 responses. United States District Court Northern District of California 5 In light of these representations, UAT’s requested relief is denied without prejudice to 6 renewal via joint statement following receipt of Rivera’s supplemental responses, which are due 7 by September 26, 2022. Prior to filing any renewed joint statement, the parties must meet and 8 confer on each discovery request that remains in dispute. To the extent Rivera continues to assert 9 objections based on confidentiality and/or privacy grounds, she must clearly articulate the privacy 10 interests at stake and explain why the confidentiality provisions of the stipulated protective order 11 (see Dkt. 27) provide insufficient protection. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 16, 2022 14 15 ALEX G. TSE United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?