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)

Download PDF
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?