Schaffner v. Crown Equipment Corporation

Filing 130

DISCOVERY ORDER re 129 Joint Letter filed as a Motion to Compel filed by Crown Equipment Corporation. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 11/8/11. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2011)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FRANK SCHAFFNER,

8
9

Plaintiff(s),

CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION,

11
For the Northern District of California

DISCOVERY ORDER [Docket 129]

v.

10

United States District Court

No. C 09-00284 SBA (JCS)

Defendant(s).
__________________________________/

12
13

The parties filed a Joint Letter filed as Docket Number 129. The Court treats the Joint Letter

14

as a Motion to Compel filed by the Plaintiff. Good cause appearing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as

15

follows:

16

1.

With respect to Stand Up Fork Lifts model series RC, RD, RR and RS (the “Stand Up

17

Fork Lifts”), Defendant has already produced all relevant accident records. For all

18

Stand Up Fork Lifts, the Court has previously ordered Defendant shall produce all

19

maintenance records regarding break failures and/or retrofitting doors for the past 10

20

years. Plaintiff now seeks a dizzying array of documents. The requests as framed in

21

the disputed paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents largely

22

ignore the prior rulings of this court on the scope of discovery, and are, were the court

23

writing on a blank slate, dramatically overbroad in any event. See, e.g., Request No.

24

35 (All documents regarding all customer visits (regardless of subject) pertaining to

25

stand up trucks). This flaw is uncorrected by the huge scope of production demanded

26

by Plaintiff on the eve of the close of discovery. The exceptions are noted below.

27
28

2.

In the Joint Letter, as to Electronically Stored correspondence, Plaintiff’s position is
almost unrecognizable when compared to the Requests themselves. It is also much

1

more reasonable. In as much as plaintiff has had extensive discovery on the Stand Up

2

Fork Lifts, their design, their maintenance, and their accident history, the Court

3

Orders Defendants to Search the In boxes listed on Exhibit B to the Joint Letter, for

4

the Search Terms proposed on Exhibit C to the Joint letter. The resulting documents

5

shall be produced within thirty (30) days of today if they were created within the last

6

10 years and concern the RR or RC series Stand Up Trucks (a limitation proposed by

7

Plaintiff in Exhibit B), and are not protected by either the Attorney Client Privilege or

8

the Attorney Work Product Doctrine.

9

3.

Within thirty (30) days Defendant shall produce the documents sought by paragraph
30 concerning the RC 3000 that were used in the product support team’s biannual

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

presentation to upper management.

12

4.

13
14

Within thirty days Defendant shall produce all documents relating to the failure of the
EV 100 control card.

5.

Except as expressly ordered above, the Motion is DENIED.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: November 8, 2011
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge