Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 277

ORDER re 240 Discovery Dispute Joint Report #3. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 10/9/2014. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2014)

1

*E-Filed: October 9, 2014*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

ERIC BENEDICT, RICHARD BOWDERS,
KILRICANOS VIEIRA, and DAVID
MUSTAIN, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated,

No. C13-00119 BLF (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT #3

13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16

[Re: Docket No. 240]

v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
Defendant.

17
18

This is a conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act collective action against Hewlett-

19

Packard Company (“HP”). Plaintiffs have served on HP requests for production (“RFP”) and notices

20

of deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Presently before the Court is the

21

parties’ Discovery Dispute Joint Report #3 (“DDJR #3”). Dkt. No. 240. Plaintiffs argue that

22

although HP has produced approximately 230,000 pages of documents, “HP has not produced all

23

documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ RFPs, including basic policies regarding how Class Members

24

use ticketing systems and knowledge bases in performing their job duties, policy documents

25

dictating how they are evaluated and disciplined, and various training materials.” DDJR at 2.

26

According to Plaintiffs, HP is delaying in satisfying its discovery obligations by requesting

27

additional meet and confer sessions and producing documents not responsive to Plaintiffs’ RFPs.

28

Plaintiffs request that the Court order HP to respond to each request by stating (1) where it searched

1

for responsive documents; (2) where it did not search for responsive documents; (3) whether it will

2

produce all responsive documents; (4) which responsive documents it will not produce; and (5)

3

HP’s grounds for withholding responsive documents. In addition, Plaintiffs request that the Court

4

order HP to produce all relevant documents applicable to RFP Nos. 25-30, 32, 36, 38, and 39.
In March 2013, Plaintiffs served a First Set of RFPs. A portion of classwide discovery was

5
6

completed in August 2013. Plaintiffs did not seek discovery for the next six months. In March

7

2014, HP suggested that Plaintiffs refine their requests based on the new information they gained

8

over the past year.
In April 2014, the parties met and conferred in person. Plaintiffs confirmed that they were

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

not seeking discovery at the individual level, but rather “classwide” discovery that applied “to a

11

significant chunk of the class.” Plaintiffs did not propose a definition of “classwide” at that time,

12

but agreed to clarify at a future date “what level of generality” they meant by their request for

13

“classwide” documents. In three letters that HP subsequently sent to Plaintiffs, HP stated that it was

14

searching for corporate-level documents that were applicable classwide, but it would expedite

15

matters if Plaintiffs clarified their requested scope of discovery.

16

Since April 2014, HP has been searching for and producing additional documents. HP has

17

also been locating potential Rule 30(b)(4) witnesses. In May 2014, HP sent Plaintiffs a letter that

18

updated Plaintiffs on what it did and did not find, informed Plaintiffs that it was continuing the

19

search, and requested clarification on the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests.
At this time, there is no pending, concrete discovery dispute between the parties. HP is in

20
21

the process of searching for and producing responsive documents that exist on a company-wide and

22

classwide basis. In addition, Plaintiffs did not clarify the scope of “classwide” discovery that they

23

sought until the filing of the present DDJR, in which they proposed a definition of “class-wide”

24

discovery as pertaining to at least 400 class members. Filing the DDJR without first proffering a

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

2

1

workable definition of “classwide” discovery and then giving HP reasonable time to respond is a

2

pointless waste of resources. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ requests without prejudice.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1

C13-00119 BLF (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Adam T. Klein

3

Caryn F Horner [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

4
Daniel M. Hutchinson

[e-mail]

David Ryan Carpenter

[e-mail]

5
6
Jahan C. Sagafi

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Lin Liu

[e-mail]

7
8
9

Juno E. Turner [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Kelly M. Dermody

[e-mail]

11

Marc Pilotin

12

Mark E. Haddad [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

13
Max Fischer

[e-mail], [e-mail]

14
15
16

Wendy M. Lazerson [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

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

4