City Of San Jose v. JUM Global, LLC
Filing
68
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 58 Discovery Dispute. (vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
CITY OF SAN JOSE,
Plaintiff,
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
v.
10
11
Case No.16-cv-01462-VKD
Re: Dkt. No. 58
JUM GLOBAL, LLC,
Defendant.
12
13
14
Plaintiff City of San Jose (“City”) and defendant J.U.M Global, LLC (“J.U.M.”) filed a
15
joint statement seeking resolution of a discovery dispute in which the City seeks an order
16
compelling J.U.M. to provide more precise written responses to the City’s document requests and
17
to produce responsive email in native format. The Court held a hearing on these matters on July
18
10, 2018.
19
1.
20
J.U.M.’s Written Responses to the City’s Request for Production of
Documents (Set One)
The City served its first set of document requests on J.U.M. on December 7, 2017. J.U.M.
21
served written responses to each of the nine requests in the set on January 23, 2018. As to all
22
requests, J.U.M. made specific objections and, for some, it made further representations
23
identifying by Bates number responsive documents that had already been produced. In addition,
24
J.U.M. included a representation similar to the following in response to eight of the nine requests:
25
26
27
28
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, J.U.M. responds
as follows: J.U.M. will produce all relevant, non-privileged, and reasonably
accessible writings . . . to the extent that such documents have not already
been produced in J.U.M.’s initial production.
1
See Dkt. No. 58, at 23-32 (responses to Requests Nos. 1-7, 9).1
The City objects that J.U.M.’s responses make it impossible to know whether J.U.M. is
2
3
withholding any otherwise responsive documents on grounds of relevance or privilege, and
4
whether there are, in fact, any responsive documents that have not already been produced as part
5
of J.U.M.’s initial production. According to the City, J.U.M.’s response is particularly
6
problematic with respect to documents withheld on grounds of privilege because J.U.M. has not
7
yet provided a privilege log.2 J.U.M. did not directly address this issue in the joint statement, but
8
at the hearing it acknowledged that it could clarify its responses to make clear which documents, if
9
any, were being withheld and on what grounds.
Rule 34(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party responding to a
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
document request to “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the
12
reasons,” and to “state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that
13
objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B), (C). J.U.M. has not fully complied with that directive.
14
Accordingly, J.U.M. must supplement its responses to the City’s Requests Nos. 1-7 and 9 to
15
indicate whether and on what grounds documents that are otherwise responsive to those requests
16
will not be produced. With respect to the City’s Request No. 8, it is not clear whether J.U.M.
17
objects to the request in its entirety, or whether it objects to a portion of the request. Rule
18
34(b)(2)(C) instructs that if a party objects to only a portion of the request, it must so state and
19
must produce documents responsive to the portion of the request to which it does not object.
20
J.U.M. must also supplement its response to Request No. 8 to make the nature and scope of its
21
objections clear and to respond, as appropriate, to the portions of the request to which it does not
22
object. J.U.M. shall supplement its responses to all document requests, as directed above, no later
23
than July 20, 2018.
24
2.
25
In its first set of document requests to J.U.M., the City specified that electronically stored
Production Format for Email
26
27
28
1
2
J.U.M. objected to and did not respond to Request No. 8.
The parties informed the Court that they have conferred since the filing of their joint statement
and will reach agreement on a deadline to exchange privilege logs.
2
1
documents, including email, be produced in their native file format. See Dkt. No. 58 at 15:2.
2
J.U.M. did not object to this demand. However, it produced its responsive electronically stored
3
information (“ESI”) in the form of searchable .pdfs, which was not the native format, at least, for
4
responsive email. The City argues that it cannot effectively access and review J.U.M.’s email
5
production in searchable .pdf format and that it requires that email be produced in native format.3
At the hearing on July 10, 2018, counsel for both parties confirmed that prior to service by
6
7
the City of this first set of document requests, J.U.M. had produced email in searchable .pdf
8
format without objection from the City, and that the City itself had produced its own email to
9
J.U.M. in that format. However, the parties did not ever actually reach an agreement on the form
10
of ESI production, nor did they discuss the issue during their Rule 26(f) conference.
The City is correct that Rule 34(b)(2)(D) requires a party responding to document requests
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
to object to a requested form of production for ESI. The City is also correct that Rule
13
34(b)(2)(E)(i) otherwise requires a party to produce documents as they kept in the ordinary course
14
of business (here, native file format for email) or to organize and label its production to
15
correspond to the categories of documents sought in the requests. Here, while J.U.M. can be
16
faulted for less than perfect compliance with Rule 34, its decision to continue producing ESI,
17
including email, in .pdf format was not unreasonable, given the parties’ prior course of conduct. It
18
is not necessary to belabor the point, however, as there is a practical solution to the City’s
19
complaint. J.U.M. represented that it likely would not be unduly burdensome to re-produce its
20
email production in native file format. Likewise, the City acknowledged that it likely would not
21
be unduly burdensome to re-produce its email production in native file format. Accordingly,
22
J.U.M. shall re-produce its email production in native file format no later than July 20, 2018. At
23
J.U.M.’s request, the City must also re-produce its email production in native file format within 10
24
days of receiving any such request from J.U.M.
25
Nothing in this order is intended to preclude the parties from reaching a further or different
26
agreement on the form of production of ESI. Any such agreement should be reduced to writing to
27
3
28
The City moves to compel the production of email only in native format, and does not seek the
production of other ESI in native format. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 58 at 5:1-6.
3
1
2
3
avoid future disputes on this point.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 11, 2018
4
5
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?