Saramiento v. Fresh Harvest, Inc., et al

Filing 65

Discovery Order re 63 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. Supplemental Joint Submission due within 15 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 7/15/2021. (svklc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2021)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RIGOBERTO SARAMIENTO, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, Re: Dkt. No. 63 10 FRESH HARVEST, INC., et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California DISCOVERY ORDER v. 9 Case No. 20-cv-07974-BLF (SVK) The Parties’ joint submission (Dkt. 63) and supplemental submissions pursuant to Dkt. 64 12 13 identify numerous disputed requests for production, though how many and on what grounds are 14 unclear because Plaintiffs’ complaints and Defendants’ objections are scattered throughout the 15 submissions and, as such, difficult to discern.1 Further, the proffered charts are not complete and 16 not properly formatted and therefore not helpful to the Court. This is not a matter of mere form 17 over substance. If the Parties cannot clearly articulate the issues and their respective positions, the 18 Court cannot provide guidance and rulings. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 19 1. Defendants state in Dkt. 63 that with the protective order in place, Fresh Harvest will 20 remove redactions on the contracts and invoices it has produced. That is to be done 21 immediately and the documents re-produced to Plaintiffs within 7 days of this order. 22 2. Plaintiffs are to re-organize their portion of the joint submission, organizing it into 23 categories of related RFPs, identifying the category and the specific requests covered 24 by each category. For example: Documents relating to H-2A job orders (Request nos. 25 __-__); Documents provided to workers (Request nos. __-__); etc. For each category, 26 Plaintiffs are to explain the relevance of the requests and address any issues of 27 28 1 In addition, Exhibit A reflects RFPs directed to Fresh Harvest and Exhibit B reflects RFPs directed to SMD Logistics. The RFPs contained in Exhibits A and B are not identical. 1 proportionality. Plaintiffs are to provide their portion of the joint submission to 2 Defendants within 5 days of this order. 3 3. Defendants are to re-organize their portion of the joint submission using Plaintiffs’ 4 categorized format, inserting their position under Plaintiffs’ position for each category. 5 Defendants are to provide their portion to Plaintiffs with 5 days of receiving 6 Plaintiffs’ portion. The parties are to meet and confer regarding finalizing and must 7 file a Supplemental Joint Submission, not to exceed 8 pages, within 15 days of this 8 order. 9 4. The Parties are to submit a chart, single-spaced in landscape format that identifies the request, the response, a brief summary (e.g., 2-3 sentences) of each Party’s position 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 and offer of compromise presented side-by-side (not vertically), and a column for the 12 Court’s ruling. The chart is merely a summary; it is not the place to paste arguments 13 from the joint submission. Parties often set forth the request and response with the 14 column-formatted positions underneath, to wit: 15 Request:________ 16 Response___________ 17 Plaintiff’s Position Defendant’s Position Proposed Court Order 18 Compromise 19 Plaintiff: 20 Defendant: 21 22 SO ORDERED. Dated: July 15, 2021 23 24 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28 2

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?