Appin v. Mergermarket (U.S.) Ltd. et al

Filing 156

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 148 Joint Discovery Letter, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed on 11/22/2024.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICKY L. APPIN,
Plaintiff,

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Case No. 23-cv-03372-HSG (DMR)

v.

10

MERGERMARKET (U.S.) LTD., et al.,

11

Defendants.

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER RE: DOCUMENT
PRODUCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 148

12
13

Plaintiff Ricky L. Appin filed a unilateral discovery letter on October 15, 2024, after the

14

October 7, 2024 fact discovery cut-off, in which she challenged the sufficiency of Defendants’

15

document production. [Docket No. 140.] The court ordered the parties to immediately meet and

16

confer and to file a standalone joint letter on any remaining disputes. [Docket No. 144.] The

17

parties timely filed a joint letter in which Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Mergermarket

18

(U.S.) Ltd. to produce additional documents in response to 29 RFPs. [Docket No. 148 (Jt.

19

Letter).] This matter is suitable for determination without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

20

Defendant opposes the motion to compel on several grounds. In relevant part, Defendant

21

asserts that it shared its search terms with Plaintiff on June 17, 2024, and that after Plaintiff’s

22

counsel “raised concerns about [its] document production,” defense counsel asked them to explain

23

why Defendant’s search terms were deficient or propose additional search terms. Jt. Letter 4.

24

Defendant asserts that it requested such input “at least half a dozen times” but that Plaintiff’s

25

counsel “repeatedly refused” to provide feedback. Id. (emphasis removed). Plaintiff does not

26

dispute Defendant’s description of the parties’ interactions regarding search terms.

27
28

The Northern District’s Guidelines for the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information
provide that the court “expects cooperation on issues relating to the preservation, collection,

1

search, review, and production of ESI.” The District’s ESI Checklist encourages the parties to

2

“engage in on-going meet and confer discussions” about the discovery of ESI, including “specific

3

words or phrases or other methodology, that will be used to identify discoverable ESI[.]” Given

4

that Defendant first shared its search terms with Plaintiff in June 2024, the parties had plenty of

5

time to engage in a cooperative process to identify relevant information. It is undisputed that

6

Plaintiff did not participate in that process despite repeated requests by the defense. Discovery is

7

now closed. It is far too late to move to compel Defendant to start conducting additional searches

8

for responsive documents.1 The motion to compel is denied. Defendant’s request for sanctions is

9

denied.

S

R NIA

Dated: November 22, 2024

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

______________________________________
Donna M.
Ryu
M. Ryu
a
n
n
o
D
JudgeMagistrate
Chief
Judge

13

ER

16

A

H

15

LI

RT

14

FO

NO

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

UNIT
ED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

RT
U
O

10

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
T
A
T

N

D IS T IC T O
R

F

C

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The court notes that the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam’s Standing Order provides that “[t]he
parties must allow sufficient time for the assigned Magistrate Judge to resolve discovery disputes
before the close of discovery.”
2
1