Flynn v. Sony Electronics, Inc. et al
Filing
211
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)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
In re SONY VAIO COMPUTER
NOTEBOOK TRACKPAD
LITIGATION
13
14
CASE NO. 09cv2109-AJB (MDD)
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE:
REDACTIONS
[ECF NO. 208]
15
16
Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties for determination
17
of a discovery dispute filed on February 18, 2014. (ECF No. 208). The
18
dispute pertains to redactions of content in documents provided by
19
Defendant Sony in the course of document production. During the
20
course of document discovery, Defendant produced documents from
21
which certain content was redacted for non-responsiveness or
22
irrelevance. Plaintiff asserts that these redactions are contrary to law.
23
Defendant contends that the Court need not reach the merits of the
24
dispute because Plaintiff’s motion is untimely and, in any event, the
25
redactions are lawful. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s
26
complaint is untimely.
27
28
This was a rolling production and the last of the documents in issue
was produced, according to Plaintiff, on December 28, 2012. (ECF No.
-1-
09cv2109-AJB (MDD)
1
208-4). Defendant asserts that pursuant to this Court’s Civil Chambers
2
Rules, any issue regarding redactions in these documents should have
3
been presented to the Court within 45 days of the offending production.
4
See Magistrate Judge Dembin’s Civil Chambers Rules V. C. and V. D.
5
Plaintiff asserts that this is not a discovery dispute; rather, it is a
6
redaction dispute and the Chambers Rules do not apply. Plaintiff argues
7
that this dispute is not over “written” discovery. The Court disagrees. A
8
dispute regarding the adequacy of a document production, whether the
9
dispute is over privilege, relevance, burdensomeness, vagueness or any
10
other lawful objection and whether the issue encompasses withholding
11
an entire document or only a portion, is a discovery dispute. Further,
12
regardless of whether the dispute arises from an interrogatory or a
13
request for production, the production is the result of “written”
14
discovery.
15
This dispute should have been brought before the Court over one
16
year ago. Plaintiff offers only the excuse that many of the challenged
17
documents were produced toward the end of 2012. There is no reason
18
offered for Plaintiff’s decision not to seek relief from the Chambers Rules
19
early in 2013.
20
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as
21
presented in the instant joint motion as untimely and will not address
22
the merits of the dispute.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 26, 2014
25
26
27
Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge
28
-2-
09cv2109-AJB (MDD)
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?