Newman v. Google LLC

Filing 54

Order by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim Regarding 53 Discovery Letter Brief.(sklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEVEN NEWMAN,
Plaintiff,

8

GOOGLE LLC,

Regarding Docket No. 53

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES

v.

9
10

Case No. 22-cv-02799-CRB (SK)

12

Now before the Court is the joint discovery letter brief filed on May 3, 2024, to address the

13

parties’ discovery disputes. Plaintiff seeks to compel to produce documents responsive to his first

14

set of requests for production of documents and responses to interrogatories. Plaintiff also seeks

15

an order requiring Defendant to produce four witnesses for deposition.

16

A.

17

Request for Production of Documents.
Plaintiff issued his first set of requests for production of documents, with 86 categories of

18

documents, and Defendant responded. (Dkt. No. 53 (Ex. 1).) In many of the responses, after

19

objecting, Defendant then stated that it:

20
21
22
23

refers Plaintiff to [its] initial disclosures and corresponding
document production. [Defendant] is willing to meet and confer
with Plaintiff regarding the production of specific documents
responsive to this request, to the extent that they had not already
been produced.
(Id.) These responses do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, which states:

24
25
26
27
28

(B) Responding to Each Item. For each item or category, the
response must either state that inspection and related activities will
be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for
objecting to the request, including the reasons. The responding
party may state that it will produce copies of documents or of
electronically stored information instead of permitting inspection.
The production must then be completed no later than the time for

inspection specified in the request or another reasonable time
specified in the response.

1
2

(C) Objections. An objection must state whether any responsive
materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An
objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit
inspection of the rest.

3
4
5
6
7
8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (b)(2). Defendant is required to state whether it will produce the documents or
whether it has already produced the specific documents without simply referring to the initial
disclosures. Also, to the extent that Defendant objects, Defendant must identify the documents
withheld on the basis of the objection. The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide responses

9
compliant with Rule 34 by May 31, 2024.1 After Plaintiff receives code-compliant responses, if
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff still contends that Defendant’s responses or production is deficient, Plaintiff may then,
after meeting and conferring with Defendant, file a letter brief to address Plaintiff’s claimed

12
deficiencies.
13
B.

Interrogatories.

14
Plaintiff served a set of 23 interrogatories and Defendant responded. (Dkt. No. 53 (Ex. 2).)
15
16
17

In many of the responses, Defendant objected and then stated that it “refers Planitiff” to its initial
disclosures and corresponding document production.” (Id.) These responses do not comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, which states:

18
(d) Option to Produce Business Records. If the answer to an
interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling,
abstracting, or summarizing a party’s business records (including
electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or
ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either
party, the responding party may answer by:
(1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient
detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify
them as readily as the responding party could; and
(2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to
examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations,
abstracts, or summaries.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. Defendant’s responses which refer to its initial disclosures is not specific

27
28

1

Some of the responses comply with Rule 34, as Defendant agrees to produce responsive
documents.
2

1

enough to satisfy Rule 33. Also, Defendant responds to some Interrogatories by referring to other

2

responses. Again, those response do not comply with Rule 33.2 The Court ORDERS Defendant

3

to provide responses compliant with Rule 33 by May 31, 2024. Again, after Plaintiff receives

4

code-compliant responses, if Plaintiff still contends that Defendant’s responses are deficient,

5

Plaintiff may then, after meeting and conferring with Defendant, file a letter brief to address

6

Plaintiff’s claimed deficiencies.

7

C.

Plaintiff seeks to compel depositions of four witnesses. Defendant claims that the parties

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Depositions.

have been meeting and conferring to schedule them. The Court finds that this request is thus

10

premature and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request.

11

D.

Sanctions.

12

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant. The Court DENIES the request for sanctions.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: May 8, 2024
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Some of Defendant’s responses comply with Rule 33, and it does not appear that Plaintiff
challenges those responses.
3
2

28