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)

Download PDF
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

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?