Valvoline Instant Oil Change Franchising, Inc. et al v. RFG Oil, Inc.

Filing 130

ORDER Denying With Prejudice 123 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 12/9/2014. (srm)

1

14 DEC - 9 PrJ 3: I 4

2
3
4

DEPUTY

5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL
CHANGE FRANCHISING, et ai.,
Plaintiffs,

12

vs.

CASE NO. 12cv2079-GPC(KSC)
ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

13
14
15

Defendant.

16
17

[Doc. No. 123.]

RFG OIL, INC.,

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

18
On September 29, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of

19

20 Discovery Dispute. [Doc. No. 123.] In the Joint Motion, defendant RFG seeks an
21

22
23
24
25

order:
(1)

Reopening discovery, which, after several extensions of time, was

scheduled to be completed on August 15,2014. [Doc. Nos. 73, 81, 86, 99.];
(2)

Allowing another round of unspecified written discovery requests to be

served on plaintiff Henley Enterprises, Inc. ("Henley") for reasons that are unclear in

26 the parties' Joint Motion;
27
28

(3)

Permitting depositions of at least two unspecified, additional witnesses for

reasons that are unclear in the parties' Joint Motion; and
- 1-

12cv2079-GPC(KSC)

1

(4)

Requiring plaintiff Henley to remove the "confidential- attorney's eyes

2 only" designation from some vague assortment of documents produced by Henley
3 pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Protective Order and the Court's Order of June 27,
4 2014. [Doc. No. 123, at pp. 4-5; Doc. No. 110; Doc. No. 98.]
5

The Court has considered the papers submitted by the patties and finds that

6 defendant RFG has failed to establish good cause for re-opening discovery. 1 The Court
7 also finds that defendant RFG' s reasons for seeking additional discovery from Henley
8 at this late stage of the proceeding are too vague and mnbiguous to satisfy the relevance
9 standard of Federal Rule 26(b). In addition, the Court finds that plaintiff Henley has
10 presented other convincing reasons why the Court should deny defendant RFG's
11

request for an order allowing additional written discovery requests and depositions.

12 [Doc. No. 123, at pp. 7-9.]
13

With respect to defendant RFG' s request for an order requiring plaintiff Henley

14 to remove "confidential-attorney's eyes only" designations from a large number of
15 unspecified documents, the Court notes that the Stipulated Protective Order provides
16 in part as follows:
17

2.

18
19
20
21

///

BX designating a document, thin~, material~ testimony or other
information derived therefrom as ConfidentIal;" under the terms
ofthis Order, the party making the designation IS certifying to the
court that there is a good faithoasis both in law and in tact for the
designation within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(g) ....

* ** *

22 / / /
23 11/
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) expressly states that "[a~
schedu1t: may be modified only for good cause and. witli the Judge's c0!1sen~.
Fed.R.Clv.P. 16(b)(4). The "good cause" standard III Rule 16(bJt4) "prImarIly
26 considers the diligence oftheJJarty" seeking to amend a scheduling order. Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 1J75 F.2d 604, 609 (911 Cir. 1992). "Tlie district court may
27 modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence ofthe
party seekin& the extension.' Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983
28 amendment). Id. "[T]he focus ofthe inquiry is uRon the moving party's reasons for
seeking modification." Id. "If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end." Id.
25

-2-

12cv2079·GPC(KSC)

1
11.

2
3
4

This Order shall be without prejudice to the right of the parties (i)
to brin~ before the Court at any time the question of whether any
particular document or information is confidential or whether its
use should be restricted ...."

[Doc. No. 110, at p. 2, 4 (emphasis added).]
Defendant RFG has not shown that plaintiff Henley's designation of any

5

6 "particular" document as "confidential- attorney's eyes only" was made in "bad faith."
7 [Doc_ No. 110, at pp. 2, 4.] Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for
8 the Court to issue an order requiring plaintiff Henley to change any of its designations.

Based on the foregoing, defendant RFG's request an order: (1) reopening

9

10 discovery; (2) allowing defendant RFG to serve plaintiff Henley with more written
11

discovery requests; (3) permitting defendant RFG to take at least two more unspecified

12 depositions; and (4) requiring plaintiff Henley to remove the "confidential- attorney's
13

eyes only" designation from a large number of documents is DENIED WITH

14 PREJUDICE.
15
16 Date:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7)etl.

q

,2014

17
18
ORD
tates Magistrate Judge

19
20
21

22
23
24
25

26
27

28
-3-

12cv2079-GPC(KSC)