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)

Download PDF
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

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?