Trejo v. Macy's Inc., et al

Filing 55

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 32 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Compel (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

EFFREN TREJO

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
MACY’S, INC., DEPARTMETN STORES
NATIONAL BANK, FDS BANK, THOMAS
MARSHALL, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-02064-LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
COMPEL
(Re: Docket Nos. 32, 33)

On March 11, 2014, the parties appeared before the court for a hearing on the two instant

19

motions. Concerned about the sufficiency of the “meet and confer process” that had taken place,

20

the court gave both parties the use of its jury room for a more extensive conversation. That

21

conversation, however, lasted for less than half an hour and resulted in no additional agreements or

22

compromises. Rather than hold up the law and motion calendar, the court informed the parties that

23
it would instead issue a brief order resolving the outstanding disputes. This is that order.
24
25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:13-cv-02064-LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL

I. BACKGROUND

1

On October 31, 2013, Plaintiff Effren Trejo served written discovery requests on

2
3

Defendants Macy’s Inc., FDS Bank, and Department Stores National Bank. On December 5, 2013,

4

Trejo received responses, but they were primarily in the form of boilerplate objections. On

5
6

December 20, 2013, Trejo sent Defendants a meet and confer letter. On January 14, 2014,
Defendants “fully supplemented” their discovery responses, yet they only produced additional

7
8
9

documents on January 24, 2014. On January 29-30, 2014, the parties engaged in further meet and
confer sessions, resulting in Defendants’ production of additional documents on February 3, 2014.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

On February 4, 2014, Trejo filed the instant motions to compel responses to select interrogatories

11

and requests for production.

12
13

Although Defendants also committed to supplementing their interrogatory responses on
March 4, 2014, at the hearing on March 11, the parties were unable to identify any issues that the

14
alleged supplementation resolved. With the close of fact discovery fast approaching, the court now
15
16

GRANTS the instant motions as to all but four of the contested issues.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS

17
18

A.

19

Motion to Compel
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party “may obtain discovery regarding

20

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” 1 “Relevance for

21

purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” 2 If a party facing a discovery deadline is waiting

22
for documents in response to a document request, the party may immediately move to compel
23
24
25
26

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

27

2

See Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998).

28

2
Case No. 5:13-cv-02064-LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL

1

production of the documents. 3 On a motion to compel, the “party seeking to compel discovery has

2

the initial burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule

3

26(b)(1).” 4 “In turn, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery

4

should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections

5

with competent evidence.” 5

6

When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the

7
8
9

information is privileged, the party must describe the nature of the documents, communications, or
tangible things not produced or disclosed – and do so in a manner that, without revealing

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim. 6 The

11

Ninth Circuit has held that a party meets its burden of demonstrating the applicability of the

12

attorney-client privilege by submitting a log that identifies (a) the attorney and client involved, (b)

13
14

the nature of the document, (c) all persons or entities shown on the document to have received or
sent the document, (d) all persons or entities known to have been furnished the document or

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) (A motion to compel a discovery response may be made if “a
party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted--or fails to permit inspection--as requested
under Rule 34.”).
4

Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, Case No.
3:09-cv-03529-JSW-LB, 2012 WL 5519199, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2012) (citing Soto v. City of
Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (noting that “in general the party seeking to
compel discovery bears the burden of showing that his request satisfies the relevance requirement
of Rule 26.”): see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope
of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense--including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of
persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of
any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence”).
5

26

Louisiana Pac., 2012 WL 5519199, at *3 (citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458
(C.D. Cal. 2002)).

27

6

28

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).

3
Case No. 5:13-cv-02064-LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL

1

informed of its substance, and (e) the date the document was generated, prepared, or dated. 7 The

2

privilege log goes beyond these standards if it also provides information on the subject matter of

3

each document. 8 Such a log should generally be submitted within thirty days of the production

4

request being served. 9

5

III. DISCUSSION

6

The vast majority of the information sought by the interrogatories and requests for

7
8
9

production at issue is plainly relevant to the litigation at hand. Trejo seeks the identity and contact
information of individuals and entities that were or may have been involved in the attempt to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

collect his debt. Any of these may be relevant fact witnesses, such that Trejo is entitled to depose

11

them. Trejo also seeks information about Defendants’ financial status, which is relevant to his

12

punitive damage claim. The only clear overreaches presented in these discovery requests are the

13

requests for production that seek information about previous complaints and judgments against

14
Defendants relating to the collection of debts or complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau
15
16

between 2009 and now. Even if these requests were remotely likely to lead to the discovery of

17

additional fact witnesses, as Trejo would have the court believe, in their present form, they are

18

overbroad.

19
20
21

On those bases, the court now GRANTS Trejo’s motions as to all interrogatories and
requests for production except numbers 11 and 12 as to DSNB and 12 and 13 as to Macy’s and
FDS Bank. Defendants shall fully respond to Trejo’s interrogatories and requests for production

22
23
24
25

7

See In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992) (listing requirements)
(citing Dole v. Milonas, 889 F.2d 885, (9th Cir. 1989).

8

26

See id. (noting the corporation’s “privilege log went beyond the Dole standards to provide
information on the subject matter” of each document).

27

9

28

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.

4
Case No. 5:13-cv-02064-LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL

1
2

within seven days of this order. Any documents withheld on the basis of privilege shall be
recorded in a privilege log, to be produced within fourteen days of this order.

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6

Dated: March 18, 2014
_____________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

5
Case No. 5:13-cv-02064-LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL