Lopez et al v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER RESOLVING 31 DISCOVERY DISPUTE by Judge Lisa J. Cisneros. (bns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OKSANA LOPEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 24-cv-04320-RS (LJC)
ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

v.
HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC.,

Re: ECF No. 31

Defendant.

12
13

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter, ECF No. 31, regarding

14

Defendant Harley-Davidson, Inc.’s deposition subpoena to Walkup, Melodia, Kelly &

15

Schoenberger (WMKS), Plaintiff’s counsel. Harley-Davidson argues that the deposition is

16

necessary to its efforts to collect and evaluate facts related to WMKS’s efforts to preserve a

17

motorcycle that is at issue in this action. See also ECF No. 25 (previous Order addressing another

18

subpoena seeking information about the motorcycle’s destruction). Having considered the parties’

19

joint letter and attachments, and the relevant authorities, the Court ORDERS as follows:

20

WMKS need not comply with the subpoena at this time. Instead, within seven days, the

21

parties shall meet and confer to determine a deadline for Doris Cheng to provide a declaration with

22

a detailed explanation of her firm’s efforts to preserve the decedent’s motorcycle and the

23

circumstances under which it was destroyed. When the parties meet and confer, they shall also

24

address the topics that the declaration should cover. Harley-Davidson has flagged concerns that

25

Interstate Services’ records contained redactions and other omissions. ECF No. 31 at 5. This

26

district has recognized that declarations may provide suitable evidence to address spoliation

27

concerns, though gaps in information contain therein may indicate an effort to evade the discovery

28

relevant information. See Vieste, LLC v. Hill Redwood Development, No. 09-cv-04024, 2011 WL

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

2198257, at *1, *5 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 2011) (finding that defendants had failed to provide adequately

2

detailed declarations regarding their document preservation and collection efforts); Google, Inc. v.

3

Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., No. C 03-5340, 2007 WL 1848665, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jun.

4

27, 2007) (noting the court’s prior order requiring declarations regarding what the company’s

5

employees did to preserve and collect documents). To ensure that Harley-Davidson has a

6

sufficient opportunity to explore the issues of concern, no later than seven days after Ms. Cheng

7

provides the declaration, Harley-Davidson may request further discovery, such as a supplemental

8

declaration or a deposition of Ms. Cheng, if it believes that follow up is needed. If Harley-

9

Davidson makes such a request, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the scope of the

10

supplemental discovery. If the parties disagree as to the need for this supplemental discovery,

11

they may file a joint letter no later than fourteen days after Ms. Cheng provides her declaration.

12

If a deposition remains necessary, the Court anticipates that Ms. Cheng’s declaration will

13

help the parties and, if necessary, the Court to determine suitable topics and boundaries for the

14

deposition.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2025

17
18
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2