Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
190
Discovery Order re 189 Defendant's Request for Telephonic Discovery Conference, 186 Plaintiffs' Request for Telephonic Conference. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/17/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2016)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, et al.,
Case No. 13-cv-05996-PJH (MEJ)
Plaintiffs,
7
v.
DISCOVERY ORDER
8
9
FACEBOOK INC.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 186, 189
Defendant.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
On May 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a request for a telephonic discovery conference for the
13
purpose of obtaining an order that Facebook provide its portions of four letter briefs. Dkt. No.
14
186. In support of their request, Plaintiffs stated Facebook had taken “two actions within hours of
15
each other.” First, Facebook “decided to pull out of [the undersigned’s] procedure for resolving
16
discovery disputes, refusing to provide its final version of its portion of letter briefs regarding
17
issues that the parties have been conferring on for months, including multiple in-person meetings,
18
and instead announced its intention to seek a new procedure more to its liking along with a stay of
19
discovery.” Second, “Facebook filed with Judge Hamilton an ‘errata’ to correct a
20
misrepresentation it made in its opposition to class certification which included a partial Facebook
21
document which had theretofore been withheld, and which is the very same type of document
22
Plaintiffs have been pursuing through [the undersigned’s] discovery procedures, but which
23
Facebook claimed lacked relevancy and refused to produce.”
24
Based on Plaintiffs’ representations and seeking to avoid unnecessary briefing, the Court
25
ordered the parties to meet and confer in person on May 23, 2016 in the undersigned’s courtroom
26
to meaningfully discuss and attempt to resolve their disputes. However, Facebook subsequently
27
filed its own request for a telephonic conference, stating that the Court should hold the conference
28
before the May 23 meet and confer for two reasons. First, Facebook contends that although it has
1
agreed to submit its portions of the discovery briefs now, “further discovery motions practice is
2
improper given that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is fully briefed, was argued on
3
March 16, and is currently awaiting a decision.” Facebook maintains there is no prejudice to
4
Plaintiffs in deferring these issues until the Court rules on the pending class certification motion
5
because there is currently no discovery cut-off. Second, even if the Court does not defer these
6
discovery disputes until there is a ruling on class certification, Facebook contends the Court
7
should hold a discovery conference for the separate reason that Plaintiffs’ counsel “have
8
repeatedly rewritten both the substance and requested relief in their letter briefs over an extended
9
period, forcing Facebook to waste time and money responding to constantly-shifting targets.”
10
Having had the benefit of reviewing both parties’ requests, the Court agrees with Facebook
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
that it would be beneficial to defer these issues until after the ruling on class certification. As the
12
class certification ruling will determine the scope of the case moving forward, and therefore the
13
appropriate scope of discovery, it seems prudent and cost effective under these particular
14
circumstances to hold off on further discovery until that matter is resolved. And, as there is no
15
discovery cut-off, Plaintiffs face minimal prejudice in a brief stay pending resolution of this issue.
16
Accordingly, the Court VACATES the May 23 meet and confer. The parties are ORDERED to
17
meet and confer to discuss the appropriate scope of discovery after the District Court rules on the
18
pending class certification motion. In the meantime, the Court shall not consider any further
19
disputes.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
24
Dated: May 17, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28
2
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?