Flynn v. Sony Electronics, Inc. et al
ORDER denying 208 Joint MOTION for Discovery and Statement for Determination of Discovery Dispute - Sony Redactions. As stated herein, Plaintiff's motion to compel further production, as presented in the instant joint motion, is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 2/26/14. (Dembin, Mitchell)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re SONY VAIO COMPUTER
CASE NO. 09cv2109-AJB (MDD)
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
[ECF NO. 208]
Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties for determination
of a discovery dispute filed on February 18, 2014. (ECF No. 208). The
dispute pertains to redactions of content in documents provided by
Defendant Sony in the course of document production. During the
course of document discovery, Defendant produced documents from
which certain content was redacted for non-responsiveness or
irrelevance. Plaintiff asserts that these redactions are contrary to law.
Defendant contends that the Court need not reach the merits of the
dispute because Plaintiff’s motion is untimely and, in any event, the
redactions are lawful. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s
complaint is untimely.
This was a rolling production and the last of the documents in issue
was produced, according to Plaintiff, on December 28, 2012. (ECF No.
208-4). Defendant asserts that pursuant to this Court’s Civil Chambers
Rules, any issue regarding redactions in these documents should have
been presented to the Court within 45 days of the offending production.
See Magistrate Judge Dembin’s Civil Chambers Rules V. C. and V. D.
Plaintiff asserts that this is not a discovery dispute; rather, it is a
redaction dispute and the Chambers Rules do not apply. Plaintiff argues
that this dispute is not over “written” discovery. The Court disagrees. A
dispute regarding the adequacy of a document production, whether the
dispute is over privilege, relevance, burdensomeness, vagueness or any
other lawful objection and whether the issue encompasses withholding
an entire document or only a portion, is a discovery dispute. Further,
regardless of whether the dispute arises from an interrogatory or a
request for production, the production is the result of “written”
This dispute should have been brought before the Court over one
year ago. Plaintiff offers only the excuse that many of the challenged
documents were produced toward the end of 2012. There is no reason
offered for Plaintiff’s decision not to seek relief from the Chambers Rules
early in 2013.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as
presented in the instant joint motion as untimely and will not address
the merits of the dispute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 26, 2014
Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge
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?