Chavez v. Converse, Inc. et al

Filing 41

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S PROPOSAL FOR VIDEO PRESERVATION #40 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 1/21/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Jon Meer (SBN 144389)
E-mail: [e-mail]
Sheryl L. Skibbe (SBN 199441)
E-mail: [e-mail]
Casey J.T. McCoy (SBN 229106)
E-mail: [e-mail]
Maya Harel (SBN 291990)
E-mail: [e-mail]
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, California 90067-3021
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
CONVERSE INC.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

ERIC CHAVEZ, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

15
16

Case No. 5:15-cv-03746-NC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
PROPOSAL FOR VIDEO PRESERVATION

v.

17

CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

18

Complaint Filed:
FAC Filed:

July 10, 2015
December 4, 2015

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR VIDEO PRESERVATION
CASE NO. 15-cv-03746-NC

1

After considering (1) the Joint Further Case Management Statement [Dkt. No. 32]; (2) the

2

Declaration of Sheryl Skibbe filed concurrently with the Joint Report, with excerpts from the 30(b)(6)

3

deposition attached as Exhibit A [Dkt. 32-1]; (3) the Proposed Order Regarding Defendant’s

4

Preservation Of Video Surveillance, submitted by Plaintiff [Dkt. No. 33]; (4) Defendant’s Response Re

5

Video Preservation Dispute; (5) the Declaration of Corey May In Support Of Defendant’s Response Re

6

Video Preservation Dispute; (6) the Proposed Order Granting Defendant’s Proposal For Video

7

Preservation, submitted by Defendant; and (7) arguments of counsel at both the November 18, 2015

8

Case Management Conference and the January 13, 2016 Further Case Management Conference, for

9

good cause shown, the Court finds as follows:

10

1.

By preserving video footage from November 20, 2015 to December 18, 2015, Defendant

11

already has preserved 29 days of video from its 21 California retail store locations. Thirteen of those

12

stores have preserved full days of video footage from the camera facing the front door and the camera

13

facing the time clock, if one exists. Seven of those stores have been unable to preserve full days of

14

video footage because of the camera system used, known as FlexWATCH. Because the FlexWATCH

15

system requires minute-by-minute downloading, preserving a full day of video would require the stores

16

only computer to be used and would remove managers from the sales floor, placing a heavy burden on

17

Defendant. The Court recognizes that Defendant already has incurred a heavy burden on its store

18

operations and profitability by preserving 29 days of video.

19

2.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “Parties may obtain discovery that is

20

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the

21

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to

22

relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and

23

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Given that

24

Defendant already has retained many days of video footage, that Plaintiff is unlikely to watch the

25

entirety of the video footage already preserved, that additional video footage will not necessarily resolve

26

the issues in dispute, and considering the burden and expense of continued preservation, as explained by

27
28

2
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR VIDEO PRESERVATION
CASE NO. 15-cv-03746-NC

1

Corey May in his declaration and in his deposition taken pursuant to FRCP, Rule 30(b)(6), Defendant

2

will be required to preserve the following:

3

a.

Preservation of the time period as ordered by the Court (from November 20, 2015

4

to December 11, 2015) from all California retail stores, but preservation of only

5

15-minutes of closing video from the FlexWATCH stores.

6

b.

Preservation of the time period agreed to by the parties (December 12, 2015 to

7

December 18, 2015) from all California retail stores, but preservation of only 15-

8

minutes of closing video from the FlexWATCH stores.

9

c.

Preservation of 5 full days from 5 non-FlexWATCH stores in January 2016. To

10

the extent Plaintiff wishes to preserve video from FlexWATCH stores, only 3

11

hours of video will be preserved from those stores, as that is comparable to the

12

time it takes to export a full day of video from non-FlexWATCH stores.

13

d.

Preservation of 5 full days from 5 non-FlexWatch stores in February 2016. To

14

the extent Plaintiff wishes to preserve video from FlexWATCH stores, only 3

15

hours of video will be preserved from those stores, as that is comparable to the

16

time it takes to export a full day of video from non-FlexWATCH stores.

17

3.

Any further requirement that Defendant preserve additional video prior to class

certification would be disproportional.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

S
Dated: January 21, 2016

UNIT
ED

21

By:

RT
U
O

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

Judge Nathanael Cousins
ANTED
G STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITEDR

23

27
28

ER

M. Cousin

s

LI

thanael
Judge Na

A

H

26

RT

25

NO

24

R NIA

19

FO

18

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

3
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR VIDEO PRESERVATION
CASE NO. 15-cv-03746-NC