Lin v. Solta Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 85

Discovery Order by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton re 84 Discovery Letter Brief.(pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HSIN LIN,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Case No. 21-cv-05062-PJH
Plaintiff,

8
v.

DISCOVERY ORDER

10

SOLTA MEDICAL, INC.,

11

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 84

12
13
14

Before the court is a joint discovery letter brief summarizing certain discovery

15

disputes between the parties. Having read the parties’ submission and carefully

16

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing,

17

the court hereby rules as follows.

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides a broad definition of relevance

19

for purposes of discovery: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged

20

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the

21

case.” “[D]iscovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is

22

designed to help define and clarify the issues.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437

23

U.S. 340, 351 (1978). “Nor is discovery limited to the merits of a case, for a variety of

24

fact-oriented issues may arise during litigation that are not related to the merits.” Id. The

25

party resisting discovery “has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed,

26

and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v.

27

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

28

The parties present three disputed issues in their joint discovery letter related to

1

RFP 41: (1) whether the search should only return results that include “CPT”, or whether

2

there are better ways to limit the search to communications about that device;

3

(2) whether the search should extend back to 2009 or 2014; and (3) whether defendant

4

must disclose the employees whose emails will be searched.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

First, the court has previously ordered that “the discovery requests should be

6

limited to materials concerning the model or generation of device at issue in the

7

complaint—not any device with the Thermage name on it.” Dkt. 80 at 4. The parties

8

dispute how best to accomplish this goal using search terms. The court agrees that

9

“CPT” or another unique product identifier (e.g., a model number) must also be included

10

somewhere in the document for it to return as a search result. The court notes that the

11

parties should consider enabling email threading technology, which produces all emails in

12

a chain when one of the emails is returned in the search, to ensure that related emails

13

are produced when one addresses the CPT device.

14

Second, the parties dispute whether the search should extend back to when the

15

product was first put onto the market in 2009, or whether it should extend back to 2014.

16

On March 15, 2023, plaintiff sent defendant a letter regarding RFPs. Dkt. 82-1 at ECF

17

p. 6. In it, plaintiff stated her willingness to agree to “narrow the request to include only

18

communications made from January 1, 2015 to the present.” Id. at ECF p. 14. Given

19

plaintiff’s earlier willingness to agree to an even narrower scope and the court’s belief that

20

a search to 2014 is sufficient and that searching back to 2009 would be excessive, the

21

search should extend to cover 2014 to present, the range to which defendant now

22

agrees.

23

Third, defendant’s portion of the joint discovery letter contained the list of

24

employees whose emails will be searched, thereby mooting the issue raised by plaintiff.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2024
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
2