Harris et al v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Filing 90

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding parties' 80 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re: Harris's First Set of Document Requests. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STARVONA HARRIS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING 10/5/17 JOINT
LETTER RE: HARRIS’S FIRST SET OF
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
Re: Dkt. No. 80

Defendant.

12
13

On October 5, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning the sufficiency of Defendant

14

Best Buy’s responses to Plaintiff Starvona Harris’s first set of requests for production of

15

documents. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 80.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks supplemental responses to

16

Request Nos. 1-3, 5, and 7. Id. at 1. In opposition, Best Buy has offered to supplement its

17

responses 30 days before trial. Id. at 2. This is unacceptable under the Federal Rules. Indeed, all

18

documents should be produced when they are discovered, as the parties have an ongoing

19

obligation to supplement their discovery responses when they learn new information. See Fed. R.

20

Civ. P. 26. While this surely does not require Best Buy to provide daily updates, waiting 30 days

21

before trial is unreasonable and contravenes the spirit of Rule 26. Thus, as Plaintiff is entitled to

22

supplemental information, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding how often that

23

information shall be supplemented after the district court decides the pending motion for class

24

certification, which would presumably close the class period.

25

Notwithstanding, Best Buy’s contention that Plaintiff should have raised these issues when

26

the responses were the subject of the May 30, 2017 meet and confer is well taken. Plaintiff is

27

advised that future efforts to compel discovery on previously resolved disputes will not be well

28

received unless she clearly articulates why the dispute is being brought so belatedly. In this case,

1

however, it is reasonable for Plaintiff to seek supplemental information based on Best Buy’s

2

untenable position regarding supplementation.

3

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks the names of the putative class members and PAGA-aggrieved

4

employees. (Joint Letter at 3.) Best Buy opposes this request and states that employees may

5

contact Plaintiff if they are so inclined. Id. at 4. Best Buy argues that the Court already required it

6

to provide contact information for 500 employees. Id. While true, the undersigned now orders Best

7

Buy to produce the employee ID numbers for those employees whose contact information was

8

furnished on September 8, 2017. (See 9/8/17 Order, Dkt. No. 72.) For the sake of clarification,

9

Best Buy shall provide a document that matches each employee ID to each name and contact

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

information, and shall do so within 14 days of this order.
Given the growing number of seemingly minor discovery disputes, the Court is concerned

12

with the parties’ apparent inability to meet and confer and resolve their disputes without court

13

intervention. Thus, going forward, the parties are reminded of their obligation to comply with the

14

Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct, which requires that “[b]efore filing a

15

motion, a lawyer should engage in a good faith effort to resolve the issue. In particular, civil

16

discovery motions should be filed sparingly.” Northern District Guidelines for Professional

17

Conduct § 10(a) (available at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/professional_conduct_guidelines).

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 26, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2