Advanced Microtherm, Inc. v. Norman Wright Mechanical Equipment Corporation et al

Filing 1469

FURTHER INTERIM ORDER re 1209 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Obedience with Prior Court Order Requiring F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc. to Produce Specified Electronic Accounting Documents and E-Mails in Reasonable Usable Form. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 4/21/10. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 4/21/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADVANCED MICROTHERM, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) NORMAN WRIGHT MECHANICAL ) EQUIP. CORP., et al., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________ ) Case No. C 04-2266 JW (PVT) FURTHER INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL OBED IEN C E WITH PRIOR COURT ORDER REQ U IR IN G F.W. SPENCER & SON, INC. TO PR O D U C E SPECIFIED ELECTRONIC AC C O U N TIN G DOCUMENTS AND E-MAILS IN REASONABLE USABLE FORM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

On April 20, 2010, pursuant to this court's prior order, Plaintiffs and Defendant F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc. ("F.W. Spencer") submitted supplemental briefs. Based on the supplemental briefs and the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than 11:00 a.m. on Monday, April 26, 2010, Defendant F.W. Spencer shall submit a declaration explaining why responsive emails prior to 2008 "were available only to the extent they were printed out and included in the project files." (See Defendant F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion re Electronic Discovery, 9:15-17.) The declaration shall also expressly state: 1) whether or not F.W. Spencer ever had any emails generated during the period 1999 through 2007 that are responsive to document request nos. 7, 8, 10 and/or 11 in the Plaintiffs' Notice of Deposition [FRCP Rule 30] and Request to Produce

OR D E R, page 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Documents at Deposition;1 and 2) if it no longer has any such emails that it previously did have, what happened to those emails. In its opposition brief, Defendant F.W. Spencer takes the position that it does not have responsive emails for the 1999 through 2007 time period other than any hard copies that were put into project files. However, the only declarations it cites in support of this claim are declarations of counsel, rather than individuals with personal knowledge of what documents F.W. Spencer previously had and has now. And nowhere in the briefs or declarations has F.W. Spencer explained why it has no other responsive emails from that time period. Dated: 4/21/10 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

See Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Russell F. Brasso in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Requiring William Spencer and F.W. Spencer to Appear for Deposition on a Date Certain and to Produce the Documents Requested at Those Depositions; and for Sanctions (Docket No. 980). OR D E R, page 2

1