Viteri-Butler v. University of California, Hastings College of the Law et al

Filing 58

Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 52 Discovery Letter Brief.(kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013)

1
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3
4
5
6

ORDER REGARDING SEPTEMBER 16,
2013 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No.: CV 12-02651 PJH (KAW)

SARA VITERI-BUTLER,

v.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On August 15, 2013, this matter was referred to the undersigned for discovery purposes.
(Order of Reference; Dkt. No. 49). On September 16, 2013, the parties filed their joint discovery
letter. (Joint Ltr.; Dkt. No. 52). Plaintiff asserts that the College's responses to her requests for
production are insufficient. (Id. at 2). The College challenges those requests as ambiguous,
overbroad and/or not stated with reasonable particularity, and unduly burdensome. (Id. at 4, 7, 9,
10, 11). The College also objects to certain requests for discovery as requiring disclosure of
attorney work-product or privileged information. (Id. at 10).
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is deemed suitable for disposition without
hearing. Having reviewed the papers filed by the parties, the court orders the College to
supplement its responses to Plaintiff's requests for production as set forth below.
I.

BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2012, Sara Viteri-Butler ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against the University
of California, Hastings College of the Law ("College") and SEIU Local 3299 ("Union").
(Compl.; Dkt. No. 1). In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges retaliation, breach of duty of fair
representation, and age, race, and disability discrimination. (Id.) The College hired Plaintiff in
1984. (Id. ¶ 9). On March 8, 2012, the College notified Plaintiff that she was being laid off

1

because her position, Financial Aid Assistant, had been eliminated. (Id. ¶ 24). Plaintiff contacted

2

her union representative that day, who indicated that the Union had no prior knowledge about

3

which employees were being laid off and that it would look into the matter. (Id. ¶ 25). The

4

elimination of Plaintiff's position coincided with the College's reduction-in-force ("RIF"). (Joint

5

Ltr. at 1). Plaintiff asserts that the RIF "disproportionally [sic] impacted older, disabled, Hispanic

6

workers." (Id.)
II.

7
8

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits "discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense." The information sought "need not be

10

admissible at the trial" so long as it "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

admissible evidence." Id.

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) provides:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule
26(b):
(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to
inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's
possession, custody, or control:
(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information-including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings,
images, and other data or data compilations--stored in any medium from which
information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the
responding party into a reasonably usable form . . . .
Such request "must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be

20

inspected." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1)(A).
21

III.

DISCUSSION

22

A. Document Production
23

1. Request for Production No. 2
24

Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 2 is as follows: "Any and all DOCUMENTS that
25

refer or relate to the March 2012 reduction in force at U.C. Hastings." (Joint Ltr. at 4) (emphasis
26

and capitalization in original).
27
28

2

The College responded to this request, objecting on the grounds that the request was

1
2

ambiguous, overbroad and/or not stated with reasonable particularity, and unduly burdensome.

3

(Id. at 4, 7). In its response, the College also stated that it had produced documents responsive to

4

this request as part of its initial disclosures. (Id. at 4). In addition, the College indicated that it

5

would produce documents related to the elimination of the Financial Aid Assistant position and

6

documents that identified all other positions eliminated or reduced and the affected employees.

7

(Id. at 6). The College also stated that it would provide Plaintiff with the names and residential

8

address of employees affected by the RIF; search the personnel files of each of the other positions

9

in the Financial Aid Department; and produce existing documents showing special skills,
knowledge or abilities of the employee upon the entry of an appropriate protective order. (Id. at

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

6-7). However, the College stated that it would not search for or produce any other documents.

12

(Id. at 4). The College maintains that it would be extremely burdensome and costly1 "to search

13

for each and every document of the entire College that in any manner 'relates to' anything and

14

everything about each and every [of the 200] employee[s] of the College who w[ere] affected by

15

the RIF, because the request calls for every possible document that mentions anything about the

16

RIF." (Id. at 7).
Plaintiff indicates that she seeks documents that relate to the RIF, not just Plaintiff's

17
18

position and not just a list of positions eliminated. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff also seeks "the

19

communications of the people involved in the RIF, the planning documents, the worksheets, the

20

memoranda, [and] the meeting notes." (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff seeks "statistical evidence

21

concerning the RIF and those selected for termination." (Id.)
The court finds that Plaintiff's request is not ambiguous, overbroad and/or not stated with

22
23

reasonable particularity. Plaintiff seeks documents, including communications, planning

24

documents, worksheets, memoranda, and meeting notes, that relate to the RIF. (Id. at 4). The

25

RIF is an adequately limited term by which the College can search its systems, gather

26

discoverable materials, and transmit them to Plaintiff. The RIF also concerns a discrete time

27

1

28

The College's conservative estimate is that search costs would exceed $15,000. See Joint Ltr. at
7.

3

1

period, which itself helps define the scope of Plaintiff's request and which helps the College tailor

2

its search. Insofar as the College considers Plaintiff's request extremely burdensome and costly in

3

light of the volume of material to be searched, the District's Guidelines for the Discovery of

4

Electronically Stored Information contain useful information for how the College may adequately

5

search its systems while mitigating expenses. See, e.g., Guideline 2.02.

6

Accordingly, the College shall supplement its responses to Plaintiff's Request for

7

Production No. 2. The College shall search and produce relevant materials that date back at least

8

to September 2010. This date is appropriate based on entries in the College's privilege log, which

9

show that the RIF was a topic of discussion at the College at least as early as September 2010.
See Dkt. No. 56. As for Plaintiff's request for statistical evidence, the College shall provide any

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

such information in its possession, custody, or control, and if such information is unavailable,

12

provide any related data or data compilations. See FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1)(A). Any search or

13

production of that information shall also cover materials that date back at least to September

14

2010, for the same reasons indicated above. Any production contingent on the entry of a

15

stipulated protective order, discussed infra Part III.C, shall also cover materials within that same

16

timeframe.

17

2. Request for Production No. 6

18

Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 6 is as follows: "Any and all DOCUMENTS that

19

refer or relate to the Financial Aid Position at Hastings." (Id. at 7) (emphasis and capitalization

20

in original).

21

The College responded by objecting to the request on the grounds that it was ambiguous,

22

overbroad and/or not stated with reasonable particularity, and unduly burdensome. (Id. at 7). In

23

its response, the College indicated it had produced all documents for the period of January 1,

24

2012 to the present but that it would not produce older documents. (Id.) The College now

25

maintains that it has produced all documentation2 of the College's decision to eliminate Plaintiff's

26
2

27
28

This includes documentation concerning the RIF (i.e., the Strategic Plan, individuals and
positions eliminated, demographic information for those individuals, communications between
the College and the Union, documentation of the decision to eliminate Plaintiff's position, and
other related documents); emails of decision-makers and human resources relating to the selection
4

1

position "regardless of dates[;]" that there are no other documents that are responsive to Plaintiff's

2

request; and that "[n]otwithstanding that objections were made to certain searches for the period

3

of time prior to January 1, 2012 on the grounds of lack of relevance, all of the searches that were

4

performed included the period before January 1, 2012 as well as after." 3 (Id.)
Plaintiff asserts that the College limited its response to documents from January 2012 to

5
6

the present. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that the College has done so to avoid the production of

7

documentation related to "the Dean's direction to Shauna Marshall to conduct a comprehensive

8

review and select positions or people for termination in 2011." (Id. at 7, 8). Plaintiff highlights

9

that the Strategic Plan, which the Dean referenced during his deposition, is dated August 2011.
(Id. at 8 (citing Patten Decl., Ex. P – Dean Wu Dep. 14:3-15:10, Ex. Q – UC Hastings 2011: At A

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Crossroads; Dkt. No. 48-3)). On this basis, Plaintiff asserts that any documents relating to

12

Plaintiff's position from that time period would obviously be relevant to determine how the

13

College implemented the Strategic Plan with respect to Plaintiff's position. (Joint Ltr. at 8).
So explained, Plaintiff has appropriately clarified the parameters of her Request for

14
15

Production No. 6. The court also finds that the request is not unduly burdensome. The College

16

can mitigate that burden by following the District's Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically

17

Stored Information. See, e.g., Guideline 2.02.
Accordingly, the College shall supplement its response to Plaintiff's Request for

18
19

Production No. 6. The College shall search and produce any relevant documents that date back to

20

at least September 2010. This date is appropriate given that the College's privilege log indicates

21

discoverable information may date back to at least September 2010. See Dkt. No. 56.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

of Plaintiff's position as one to eliminate, Plaintiff's personnel files, and documents relating to
internal review hearings with Plaintiff and other employees who challenged the RIF. Joint Ltr. at
6.
3

Plaintiff also takes issue with this response. See id. at 2. Plaintiff states that the College's
position has, until September 11, 2013, been: "The College has produced all documents for the
period January 1, 2012 to present. The College will not produce older documents." Id. Plaintiff
asserts the College's response is disingenuous, as the College has not identified the sources of
electronically stored information it has searched and what it still refuses to search. Id.

5

1

3. Request for Production No. 15

2

Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 15 is as follows: "Any and all DOCUMENTS

3

referring or RELATING TO any efforts made by YOU to assure that PLAINTIFF had the

4

opportunity to be transferred to another position." (Id. at 9) (emphasis and capitalization in

5

original).
The College responded to this request, objecting on the grounds that it was ambiguous and

6
7

not relevant to any claim or defense. (Id.) In its response, the College indicated that it would

8

search for and produce any documents for 2012, but that it would not search for older documents.

9

(Id.) Yet, the College maintains that it has produced all non-privileged documents responsive to

10

this request. (Id.)
Plaintiff specifically seeks production of documents from 2007 to the present, which pre-

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

date the College's January 1, 2012 cut-off. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that these documents are

13

relevant given the time frame of Dean Wu's Strategic Plan (August 2011) and the Union's

14

bargaining over approval for layoffs (July 2011). (Id.)
The information Plaintiff seeks in this request is relevant and not ambiguous. At a

15
16

minimum, such information may reveal the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's lay off,

17

including whether Plaintiff was laid off despite the possibility of a transfer to another position to

18

avoid a lay off or whether other employees were transferred to avoid the layoff of less skilled

19

employees. Plaintiff's request is also straightforward. She seeks documents concerning the

20

College's efforts to provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to transfer to another position.

21

Accordingly, the College shall supplement its response to Plaintiff's Request for

22

Production No. 15. The College shall search for and produce relevant documents that date back

23

to at least September 2010. As Plaintiff does not offer any support for her request for documents

24

dating back to 2007, see Joint Ltr. at 9, the court limits her request to documents that date back to

25

September 2010, which is appropriate in light of the entries in the College's privilege log. See

26

Dkt. No. 56.

27

//

28

//
6

1

4. Request for Production No. 16

2

Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 16 is as follows: "Any and all DOCUMENTS

3

referring or RELATING TO YOUR Director of Personnel providing records and reports to the

4

Dean to ensure compliance with YOUR layoff, furlough and reduction in time policy." (Joint Ltr.

5

at 9) (emphasis and capitalization in original).

6

The College responded to this request, objecting on the grounds that it was ambiguous,

7

overbroad and/or not stated with reasonable particularity. (Id.) The College also indicated that it

8

would supplement its response upon additional clarification from Plaintiff. (Id.) In its

9

supplemental response, the College objected on the grounds that the request was ambiguous,
overbroad and/or not stated with reasonable particularity, and called for production of documents

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

containing privileged material or attorney work-product. (Id.) The College also indicated that it

12

had produced all non-privileged documents referring to or relating to the non-privileged

13

communications with the Dean. (Id.) The College still maintains that it has produced all non-

14

privileged documents responsive to this request. (Id.)

15

Plaintiff asserts that the College's privilege log is inadequate, that the College has refused

16

to meet and confer telephonically, and that there can be no privilege between the Director of

17

Personnel and the Dean, as neither acted as an attorney in a representative capacity. (Id.) The

18

court discusses the overall adequacy of the privilege log infra Part III.B. To resolve the specific

19

issues concerning the privilege log as it affects Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 16, the court

20

notes that none of the entries in the privilege log reference materials "referring or relating to the

21

Director of Personnel providing records and reports to the Dean to ensure compliance with the

22

College's layoff, furlough and reduction in time policy." (See Privilege Log at 1, 2, 3, 4).

23

Moreover, to the extent that the College would suggest that this information is subsumed within

24

the 12 categories itemized in the four-page privilege log, the privilege log does not contain

25

sufficient detail to support such a finding. See id. The categories itemized in the privilege log are

26

as follows:

27
28

1. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Hastings' General Counsel Elise
K. Traynum, Esq. and/or one or more Senior Management Group employees of Hastings
to Hastings' outside law firm Meyers Nave and/or Wiley Price & Radulovich[;]
7

1
2
3
4
5

2. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Hastings' outside law
firms Meyers Nave and/or Wiley Price & Radulovich LLP to Hastings' General
Counsel Elise K. Traynum, Esq. and/or one or more Senior Management Group
employees of Hastings[;]
3. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Hastings' General
Counsel Elise K. Traynum, Esq. and/or one or more Senior Management Group
employees of Hastings to Hastings' outside law firm Meyers Nave[;]

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

4. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Hastings' outside law
firm Meyers Nave to Hastings' General Counsel Elise K. Traynum, Esq. and/or
one or more Senior Management Group employees of Hastings[;]
5. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Hastings' outside law
firm Vartain Law Group (civil litigation) to Hastings' General Counsel Elise K.
Traynum, Esq. and/or one or more Senior Management Group employees and/or
one or more Senior Management Group employees of Hastings and/or Hastings'
litigation insurance carrier representatives[;]

12
13
14

6. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Hastings' General
Counsel Elise K. Traynum, Esq. and/or one or more Senior Management Group
employees of Hastings to Hastings' outside law firm Vartain Law Group (civil
litigation) and/or Hastings' litigation insurance carrier representatives[;]

15
16
17
18
19

7. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Hastings' General
Counsel Elise K. Traynum, Esq. to one or more other Senior Management Group
employees of Hastings[;]
8. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from one or more Senior
Management Group employees of Hastings to Hastings' General Counsel Elise K.
Traynum, Esq.[;]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

9. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Marie Hairston to
Hillary Kane[;]
10. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Hillary Kane to Marie
Hairston[;]
11. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Hillary Kane to Linda
Bisesi[;]
12. Electronic Correspondence and Correspondence from Linda Bisesi to Hillary
Kane[;]

27
28

Privilege Log at 1, 2, 3, 4 (capitalizations in original).

8

1

Accordingly, the College shall supplement its responses to Plaintiff's Request for

2

Production No. 16. Any search for or production of relevant documents shall cover documents

3

dating back at least to September 2010. This date is appropriate in light of the entries in the

4

College's privilege log. See Dkt. No. 56.

5

5. Request for Production No. 18

6

Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 18 is as follows: "Any and all DOCUMENTS

7

referring, reflecting, or RELATED TO special skills, knowledge, or abilities of employees that

8

were not laid off from YOUR financial aid office." (Joint Ltr. at 10) (emphasis and capitalization

9

in original).

10

The College initially responded to this request, objecting on the grounds that it was

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ambiguous, overbroad and/or not stated with reasonable particularity, and unduly burdensome.

12

(Id.) The College indicated that it would produce the job descriptions of each of the positions in

13

the Financial Aid Department but it would not search for or produce other documents. (Id.) In its

14

supplemental response, the College renewed its previous objections. (Id. at 11). The College also

15

indicated that in addition to the job descriptions of each of the positions in the Financial Aid

16

Department that it had already produced, it would search the personnel files of each of the other

17

positions in the Department and produce existing documents showing the special skills,

18

knowledge, or abilities of the employee. (Id.) However, the College again stated that it would

19

not search for or produce other documents. (Id.) The College maintains that it has produced the

20

job descriptions of each of the positions in the Financial Aid Office, has completed its search for

21

the other documents responsive to this request, and will produce these documents, with proper

22

redaction for privacy purposes, upon the entry of an appropriate protective order. (Id.)

23

As discussed infra Part III.C., given that the parties have negotiated a protective order and

24

the College has now agreed to sign that order, see Joint Ltr. at 3, the College shall supplement its

25

responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 18. (Id.) Any search or production of

26

additional documents shall include materials that date back at least to September 2010. This date

27

is appropriate in light of the entries in the College's privilege log, Dkt. No. 56, which the court

28

discusses immediately below.
9

1

B. Privilege Log

2

Plaintiff asserts that the College's privilege log "is wholly inadequate as it does not

3

identify by [sic] number of documents, the dates, specifics as to the privilege asserted, nor

4

essential foundational facts which would enable a meaningful meet and confer process." (Joint

5

Ltr. at 3). Plaintiff indicates that Defendant continues to group documents by 2-year time frames

6

and unidentified recipients and authors. (Id.) The College asserts that it has modified its

7

privilege log to comply with this court's standing order. (Id.)

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This court's standing order provides that a privilege log shall include the following
information for each document or for each category of similarly situated documents:
(a) The title and description of the document, including number of pages or
Bates-number range;
(b) The subject matter addressed in the document;
(c) The identity and position of its author(s);
(d) The identity and position of all addressees and recipients;
(e) The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it
was sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s);
(f) The steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of the communication, including
affirmation that no unauthorized persons have received the communication;
(g) The specific basis for the claim that the document is privileged or protected.
Standing Order ¶ 19. The order further provides that a party's "[f]ailure to furnish this
information promptly may be deemed a waiver of the privilege or protection." Id.
In its four-page privilege log, the College lists 12 distinct document categories. (Privilege
Log at 1, 2, 3, 4). Those categories include correspondence between Hastings' General Counsel,
Hastings' Senior Management, and outside counsel as well as correspondence between internal
personnel. (Id. at 1, 2, 3). The College identifies the correspondence between Hastings' General
Counsel, Hastings' Senior Management, and outside counsel as privileged and attorney workproduct. (Id.) The College also identifies the correspondence between internal personnel as
attorney work-product, on the basis that the correspondence was designated as requests for
information from in-house counsel for trial preparation. (Id. at 4). The 12 distinct document
categories the College includes in its privilege log account for approximately 1500 pages of
material. (Id. at 1, 2, 3, 4).

10

1

The court finds that the College's privilege log is deficient in several respects. The

2

College has not adequately identified document authors. (See, e.g., id. at 1). Many of the

3

purported author identifiers follow this structure: "[c]orrespondence from Hastings' General

4

Counsel . . . and/or one or more Senior Management Group employees of Hastings . . . ." (See id.

5

at 1) (emphasis supplied). At best, this language suggests that at least one of the individuals

6

mentioned in the description authored the document. (See id.) This is insufficient. An

7

appropriate privilege log identifies the author of a document by name, not just by a description of

8

the group of individuals that happens to include the author. Moreover, the College has not

9

included detail supporting the privileges asserted, such as affirmations that no authorized persons
have received the communications described in the privilege log, adequately specified the dates

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

on which documents were prepared and sent to persons other than the document's author, or

12

clearly identified the specific individuals who received those documents. (See id.)

13

Insofar as the College wishes to assert claims of attorney-client privilege or attorney work-

14

product in response to Plaintiff's requests for production, the College shall provide Plaintiff with

15

an amended privilege log within 21 days of this order. To the extent that the College must modify

16

any other aspects of its privilege log, such as date ranges and document descriptions, in order to

17

adequately identify a document's author, to ensure proper identification of authors and recipients,

18

it shall do so.

19
20

C. Proposed Stipulated Protective Order
The College states that it agreed to produce certain additional private documents upon the

21

entry of a stipulated protective order between the parties. (Id.) The College indicates that a

22

stipulated protective order has now been negotiated between the parties. (Id.) Plaintiff contends

23

that the College "delayed an entire month after Plaintiff provided as [sic] the Northern District

24

Model for Standard Litigation" and that Defendant refused to sign the standard order "despite the

25

fact that both Plaintiff and Defendant Union have agreed to do so." (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that

26

Defendant will now sign the stipulated protective order provided more than a month ago. (Id.)

27

Plaintiff challenges Defendant's conduct as a delay tactic. (Id.)

28

11

1

The College's production of documents responsive to Plaintiff's Request for Production

2

Nos. 2 and 18 depends, in part, on the entry of a stipulated protective order. See discussion supra

3

Part III.A., 1, 5. So as to remove the entry of a stipulated protective order as a barrier to the

4

College's production of those documents, see Joint Ltr. at 7 ("These documents will be produced

5

promptly when the protective order is entered.") and Joint Ltr. at 11 ("Upon the entry of an

6

appropriate protective order, and with proper redaction for privacy purposes, the College will

7

produce these documents also."), the College is to file the agreed-upon protective order within 7

8

days from the date of this order.

9
10

D. Certifications of Searches and Productions by the College
The College asserts that it has certified its document searches and productions in writing.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(Id.) Plaintiff contends that the College "has still not identified and refuses to identify the

12

electronically stored information systems it has searched to identify potentially responsive

13

documents." (Id.) On these grounds, Plaintiff requests that the College "specify what information

14

systems as to which it has placed a litigation hold and what information systems it has searched

15

for documents responsive to Plaintiff's Rule 34 requests, as required under the Court's Guidelines

16

for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information." (Id. at 3-4).

17

The District's Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information

18

recommend that the parties consider discussing a number of topics, including "systems that

19

contain discoverable ESI" and "search and production." The Guidelines also suggest that the

20

parties discuss:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The sources, scope and type of ESI that has been and will be preserved . . . including date
ranges, identity and number of potential custodians . . . and other details that help clarify
the scope of preservation;
...
Search and production of ESI, such as any planned methods to identify discoverable ESI
and filter out ESI that is not subject to discovery, or whether ESI stored in a database can
be produced by querying that database and producing discoverable information in a report
or exportable electronic file;
...
[M]ethods and technology used for searching ESI to help identify relevant information
and sampling methods to validate the search for relevant information . . . .

28

12

1

Guideline 2.02. The District's Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer Regarding Electronically

2

Stored Information also encourage the parties to discuss these topics. Specifically:

3



4






5
6
7

Identification of systems from which discovery will be prioritized (e.g., email, finance,
HR systems).
Description of systems in which potentially discoverable information is stored.
Location of systems in which potentially discoverable information is stored.
How potentially discoverable information is stored.
How discoverable information can be collected from systems and media in which it is
stored.
...



10

The search method(s), including specific words or phrases or other methodology, that
will be used to identify discoverable EFI and filter out ESI that is not subject to
discovery.
 The quality control method(s) the producing party will use to evaluate whether
production is missing relevant ESI or contains substantial amounts of irrelevant ESI.

11

In its Certification of Searches Performed, the College certifies that it "has searched all

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

12

locations where" the information Plaintiff seeks in her requests for production "may plausibly be

13

located."4 (Cert. of Searches Performed at 1; Dkt. No 56, Ex.1). In light of the extensive detail

14

set out in the District's Guidelines and Checklist on discovery of electronically stored information,

15

the court finds that the College's certification is insufficient. Within 21 days of this order, the

16

College shall provide Plaintiff with an amended certification that mirrors the relevant sections of

17

District's Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer regarding Electronically Stored Information.

18

At a minimum, the College shall include responses to Section III (Informal Discovery about

19

Location and Types of Systems) and Section V (Search) of the Checklist. The College shall also

20

include date ranges of the data available on each system.

21
22
23
24

//
//
//
//

25

//
26
27
28

4

The College also certifies that to the extent that Plaintiff has requested production of "any and all"
RIF-related documents, complying with such request would be extremely burdensome, costly, and
would not be reasonably related to the Plaintiff's claims. Cert. of Searches Performed at 2. The court
disagrees for the reasons set forth in discussion supra Part III.A.1.

13

IV.

1

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, the court orders the College to:

3

(1) File the stipulated protective order agreed upon by the parties within 7 days of this

4
5

order.
(2) Produce additional documents in response to Plaintiff's Requests for Production Nos.

6

2, 6, 15, 16, and 18. The College shall serve these additional documents on Plaintiff

7

within 21 days of this order.

8

(3) Serve an updated certification of searches performed within 21 days of this order.

9

(4) File an updated privilege log within 21 days of this order, insofar as the College
wishes to assert claims of attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product in

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

response to Plaintiff's requests for production.

12

Furthermore, after the entry of the stipulated protective order and service of the College's

13

supplemental responses, the parties are to meet and confer regarding any other remaining

14

discovery disputes. The parties shall ensure that their meet and confer process conforms to the

15

District's Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, the District's

16

Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer Regarding Electronically Stored Information, and this

17

court's Standing Order. If, following the meet and confer, Plaintiff is not satisfied with the

18

College's production, the parties shall further meet and confer, in-person and in good faith, prior

19

to seeking further court intervention by way of an updated joint letter. Such updated joint letter

20

must include a declaration from both parties detailing their compliance with the foregoing meet

21

and confer requirements.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 30, 2013

___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

14