Long et al v. Nationwide Legal File and Serve, Inc et al

Filing 33

INTERIM ORDER re 30 Discovery Dispute Report #1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 6/3/2013. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED: June 3, 2013* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 7 GRADY VERNON LONG; ISMAIL ISA; and WARREN JEREMIAH SPIES, 12 No. C12-03578 HRL INTERIM ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE REPORT #1 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 NATIONWIDE LEGAL FILE & SERVE, INC., a California corporation; NATIONWIDE LEGAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CAESAR ERIC RAILEY, individually and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. / 19 20 Plaintiffs Long, Isa, and Spies have filed a Discovery Dispute [Joint] Report #1 21 (DDJR#1) that seeks an order compelling defendants Nationwide Legal File & Serve, Inc. and 22 Nationwide Legal (collectively “Nationwide”) to complete their production of the information 23 sought in Requests for Production (RFPs) 4, 8, 9, 17, and 20 directed to them. Plaintiffs say 24 they received some documents, but are owed many more. Plus, they say, defendants turned 25 over no electronically stored information (“ESI”), even though defendants have it and plaintiffs 26 specifically requested it. Ignoring this court’s standing order on discovery disputes, the 27 defendants chose not to participate in the preparation of DDJR#1. 28 The court issues the following interim order: 1 2 3 1. any response(s) from the Nationwide defendants (but excluding any documents produced); 2. 4 5 By June 11, 2013 plaintiffs will lodge with the court a copy of their RFPs and By June 11, 2013 the Nationwide defendants shall: a. File declarations by authorized corporate officer(s) attesting that full and complete compliance has been made with the RFPs, or 6 b. File and lodge a chambers copy of a brief not to exceed 5 pages clearly 7 and fully describing what has not been produced (both documents and ESI) and why not. Also, 8 confirm that ESI could be produced in searchable format. (Defendants should address each 9 argument made by plaintiffs in DDJR#1, with particular attention to why plaintiffs should not 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 obtain complete, unredacted server logs for defendant Railey for the relevant time period.) 3. By June 14, 2013 Plaintiffs may file a response not to exceed 3 pages to defendants’ June 11th submissions. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 3, 2013 15 HOWARD R. LLOYD 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 5:12-cv-03578-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 Allen Hyman 3 Fred W. Schwinn fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com, cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com, fschwinn@gmail.com lawoffah@aol.com 4 Raeon Rodrigo Roulston raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?