Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County

Filing 139

DISCOVERY ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins DENYING COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS NOS. 32, 34, Re: Dkt. No. 137. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 SONOMA COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF
12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 09-cv-04432 CW (NC)

RETIRED EMPLOYEES,

v.

DISCOVERY ORDER DENYING
COUNTY’S MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS NOS. 32,
34

SONOMA COUNTY,
Dkt. No. 137
Defendant.

17
18

The question presented in this discovery dispute is whether plaintiff SCARE’s

19 affiliation with two unions is relevant to this case. In document request number 32,
20 defendant Sonoma County seeks all documents after 1978 that “consist of, discuss, record,
21 or relate to” SCARE’s affiliation with SEIU/SCOPE. As defined in the request,
22 “SEIU/SCOPE” means the Service Employees International Union, Local 708 and Local
23 1021, as successor unions to the Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees. In
24 document request number 34, the County seeks communications after 1978 between
25 SCARE and SEIU/SCOPE. Dkt. No. 137.
26

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties generally may discover any

27 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Upon a showing of
28 good cause, the Court may order broader discovery of any matter relevant to the subject
Case No. 09-cv-04432 CW (NC)
DISCOVERY ORDER

nvolved in the action. “Relevant information need not b admissib at the tri if
n
be
ble
ial
1 matter in
overy appea reasonab calculat to lead t the disco
ars
bly
ted
to
overy of adm
missible
2 the disco
e.”
(b)(1).
3 evidence Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(

4

Th claims an defenses in this cas do not ne to be rep
he
nd
s
se
eed
peated here as they ar
e,
re

t
es
ed
udia
n’s
ranting
5 known to the partie and were summarize in Chief Judge Clau Wilken order gr
he
o
Amended Co
omplaint. D No. 96
Dkt.
6.
6 in part th County’s motion to dismiss the Second A

7

Si
imply put, this is a case about pos
t
e
st-retiremen medical b
nt
benefits alle
egedly prom
mised

C
etirees throu various Memorand of Under
ugh
s
da
rstanding (M
MOUs) and
d
8 by the County to re
h
t
nications w SEIU ab
with
bout
9 County resolutions. SCARE has agreed to produce its commun
rovided by MOUs. Dk No. 137 at 4. The C
M
kt.
Court agrees those
10 medical benefits pr
0
nications ar relevant. The Count has not e
re
ty
explained ho the gene relation
ow
eral
nship
11 commun
1
n
nd
U
p
alue
claims and d
defenses in this
12 between SCARE an the SEIU has any probative va to the c
2
he
a
t
ive
f
unications a
after
13 case. Th County also has not explained the probati value of all commu
3
ARE
EIU.
14 1978 between SCA and SE
4

15
5

Be
ecause the County has not established the rel
C
levance of t docume it seeks in
the
ents
s

s
2
s
e
n
nsive docum
ments is
16 requests number 32 and 34, its request to compel the production of respon
6
n
c
ourt
ot
ng
under
17 denied. As this is not a close call, the Co does no need to do a balancin inquiry u
7
o
t
ery
the
ng
18 Rule 26(b)(2)(C) to assess the benefit of the discove against t burden of producin it.
8

19
9

An party ma object to this nondispositive or
ny
ay
o
rder under F
Federal Rul of Civil
le

ure
20 Procedu 72.
0

21
1

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

22
2

Date: Decem
mber 12, 201
14

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 09-cv-0443 CW (NC)
32
)
DISCOV
VERY ORDE
ER

2