Perez et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al

Filing 399

ORDER RE PARTIES' DISCOVERY MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on July 1, 2011. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17

SARAH PEREZ, ET AL.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
STATE FARM MUTUAL
)
AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )

Case No.: C-06-01962 JW (PSG)
ORDER RE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY
MOTIONS
(Docket Nos. 378, 379, 381)

18
This morning the parties appeared on a number of discovery disputes on an expedited
19
basis. The procedure for such expedited consideration was set forth in an order dated April 22,
20
2011. The disputes were described in letters submitted on June 24, 2011, to which responses
21
were filed on June 28, 2011. Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments
22
presented this morning, the court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
23
1.

Plaintiffs' request for an order permitting depositions after Defendants complete their

24
document production is GRANTED. The undersigned has ordered all Rule 56(d) documents
25
produced by June 29, 2011, and Chief Judge Ware has set a deadline for all class discovery of
26
June 26, 2011. Even as they seek relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 from discovery ordered by
27
the undersigned and represent that they are working diligently to complete their document
28
productions, Defendants acknowledge that their productions are not yet complete and will not be
ORDER, page 1

1

complete by the court-imposed deadlines. Whatever additional remedies, including sanctions,

2

may be appropriate for any failure by Defendants to comply with the court's orders, there is no

3

legitimate reason to insist that Plaintiffs complete their depositions before they receive a

4

completed production of Defendants' documents. Indeed, Defendants effectively conceded as

5

much during the hearing.

6

2.

7

Rule 56(d) discovery is DENIED. Defendants' protests notwithstanding, the court's previous

8

orders do not impose any requirement of a collection of and production from upwards of a

9

billion documents generally and millions of estimates in particular. As the court has counseled

10

for months, Defendants may avoid such a brute-force approach to meeting their obligation under

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 by producing a statistically valid sampling of all responsive materials.

12

Unfortunately, to date, the court has not been informed of any attempt to define the universe of

13

custodians with responsive materials and then select a validated sample--stratified or otherwise--

14

to provide a representative depiction of the broader universe. Nor has the court been informed of

15

any meaningful attempt by the parties to sit down together and identify a subset of custodians

16

whose responsive documents would balance the parties' legitimate but competing interests.

17

Under these circumstances, and particularly with respect to the deadline for class discovery set

18

by the presiding judge, an order from the undersigned further delaying discovery is not

19

warranted.

20

3.

21

their summary judgment motions before discovery is completed is DENIED. Once again,

22

whether and when to hear dispositive motions is a matter of discretion for the presiding judge,

23

not the undersigned.

24

4.

25

June 24 letter of Andrew M. Hetherington and the Rule 56(d) interrogatories attached as Ex. C to

26

the June 24 letter of Andrew M. Hetherington is GRANTED. The court is satisfied that

27

Plaintiffs have now satisfied the appropriate standard for limiting interrogatory subparts. With

28

respect to this discovery only, despite the general deadlines discussed above that remain in

Defendants' request for an order continuing the deadlines for all class discovery and all

Plaintiffs' request for an order precluding State Farm and Liberty Mutual from renewing

Plaintiffs' request for permission to serve the class interrogatories attached as Ex. B to the

ORDER, page 2

1

effect, Defendants may respond no later than 30 days after service by Plaintiffs.

2

5.

3

affiliates is GRANTED. While the Third Amended Complaint references "affiliates selling

4

automobile insurance in California," this court has limited discovery from subsidiaries and

5

affiliates such as the Safeco entities that are not named as parties to the suit. See, e.g., Miller v.

6

IBM, No. C 02-2118 MJJ (MEJ), 2006 WL 1141019, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2010).

7

6.

8

representatives is DENIED. The April 22, 2011 order setting a merits discovery plan did not

9

provide for such depositions, and indeed no such depositions were proposed by Plaintiffs before

Liberty Mutual's request for a protective order against discovery from its two Safeco

Plaintiffs' request for an order authorizing depositions of third-party body shop

10

that order.

11

7.

12

2011 hearing before Judge Ware, and no later than July 15, 2011 at 5PM, any party may file a

13

letter not exceeding three pages requesting such a conference. No responses will be considered.

14
15

The parties' request for a further discovery conference is DEFERRED. After the July 11,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2011

16
17

PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER, page 3

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
ORDER, page 4