Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc.
Filing
71
ORDER granting in part 58 Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 5/26/2015. (sjt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
THEMIS BAR REVIEW, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
KAPLAN, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14CV208- L (BLM)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
[ECF No. 58]
17
Currently before the Court is Defendant’s May 4, 2015 motion to compel production of
18
documents [ECF No. 58-1 (“MTC”)], Plaintiff’s May 11, 2015 opposition to the motion [ECF No.62
19
(“Oppo.”)], and Defendant’s May 15, 2015 reply [ECF No. 63 (“Reply”)]. For the reasons set forth
20
below, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART.
21
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
22
The above-entitled matter was initiated on January 30, 2014 when Plaintiff filed a
23
complaint for declaratory relief. ECF No. 1. On April 30, 2014, Defendant answered Plaintiff’s
24
complaint and the Court held a telephonic Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on June 23,
25
2014. ECF Nos. 16 and 24. That same day, the Court issued a CMC Order Regulating Discovery
26
and Other Pretrial Proceedings. ECF No. 25.
27
On August 20, 2014, the Court convened a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”).
28
ECF No. 30. The case settled and the Court issued an order confirming settlement and setting
14CV208-L (BLM)
1
an October 14, 2014 deadline for the parties to file a joint motion for dismissal. ECF No. 31. On
2
September 22, 2014, the Court held a telephonic CMC and discovered that the parties were still
3
in the process of negotiating the details of the settlement agreement. ECF Nos. 32 and 33. On
4
October 17, 2014, counsel for both parties, Mr. Kenneth Fitzgerald and Mr. Neal Klausner,
5
contacted this Court’s chambers via telephone to inform the Court that the case had settled. ECF
6
No. 34. The Court issued an order resetting the deadline for the parties to file their joint motion
7
for dismissal to November 6, 2014. Id. at 2. The parties failed to file a join motion for dismissal
8
and instead, appeared for a Settlement Disposition Conference (“SDC”) on November 13, 2014.
9
ECF No. 35. During the SDC, the parties indicated that the settlement had fallen apart and that
10
they needed to pursue litigation. Accordingly, the Court issued an amended scheduling order.
11
ECF No. 36. On December 29, 2014, the Court entered the parties’ protective order. ECF No. 40.
12
On April 22, 2015, defense counsel, Mr. David S. Greenberg, contacted the Court regarding
13
a discovery dispute between the parties. ECF No. 52. In regard to the dispute, the Court issued
14
a briefing schedule and, in accordance with the Court’s briefing schedule, the parties timely filed
15
their respective motions and responses. MTC, Oppo., and Reply.
16
DISCOVERY BACKGROUND
17
On August 8, 2014, Defendant served its first Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”)
18
on Plaintiff seeking documents related to Plaintiff’s pass rate advertising and data substantiating
19
the pass rates identified in Plaintiff’s advertising. MTC at 6-7, ECF No. 58-2, Declaration of David
20
Greenberg (“Greenberg Decl.”) at 7, ECF No. 62-1, Declaration of Kenneth M. Fitzgerald
21
(“Fitzgerald Decl.”) at 2. Although responses were due on or around September 10, 2014,
22
Plaintiff did not respond or object until November 26, 2014. Greenberg Decl. at 7 and Exh. 3.
23
Plaintiff’s first production occurred on December 23, 20141 and included 23 pages of financial
24
information. Id.
25
On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff produced a CD-Rom containing spreadsheets reflecting
26
27
28
1
The declaration states that the first production was on December 23, 2015. Greenberg Decl. at 7. The Court
assumes that this is a typographical error and Mr. Greenberg meant December 23, 2014.
2
14CV208-L (BLM)
1
Plaintiff’s pass rate statistics by jurisdiction2 and the records of Plaintiff’s students’ bar exam
2
results3 with the percentage of Plaintiff’s course work that each student had completed. Id. at
3
8.; see also MTC at 7. The spreadsheets were produced as PDF copies of the electronic files that
4
were Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and which had been stripped of their filtering, sorting, and
5
searching capabilities. Id.
6
7
On March 2, 2015, Mr. Greenberg emailed Mr. Cochran regarding search terms and
requested
8
the resulting collection of documents as image files with related fully searchable
message text, also including the usual metadata (to, from, cc, date sent, subject,
beginning bates no., ending bates no., parent/attachment ID nos., etc.), in a format
that can be uploaded into a Summation database.
9
10
11
Greenberg Decl., Exh. 9 at 12. Mr. Cochran responded to the email, but did not address the
12
request for metadata. Id. at 11. On March 23, 2015, Mr. Greenberg emailed Mr. Cochran and
13
wrote
14
15
16
we previously requested native copies of the Microsoft Excel files Themis produced
in PDF format, containing pass rate information and student enrollment pass/fail
data, Themis 000157-Themis 001161. (See the attached email.) Please supplement
your production with these files as well
17
Id. at 8. Mr. Cochran responded to the request by asking for “authority that obligates us to
18
produce the native files.” Id. at 7. On March 30, 2015, Mr. Greenberg asked Mr. Cochran to
19
confirm that the materials being prepared from various individuals “will include the extracted
20
text.” Id. at 6. On April 17, 2015, Mr. Greenberg sent another email to Mr. Cochran seeking
21
confirmation “that the extracted text is included” and offering to meet and confer at a specific
22
time. Id. at 5. Mr. Cochran responded that same day, but did not mention the extracted text or
23
the offer to meet and confer. Id. at 4.
24
On April 22, 2015, Plaintiff produced a hard drive containing 822,493 pages of email
25
26
2
27
28
These documents were identified as THEMIS 000157 through THEMIS 000257. Greenberg Decl. at 8; see
also MTC at 7.
3
These documents were identified as THEMIS 000258 through THEMIS 0001161. Greenberg Decl. at 8; see
also MTC at 7.
3
14CV208-L (BLM)
1
communications.4 Greenberg Decl. at 14; see also MTC at 8. The production contained no
2
metadata - for example the “to” “from” “date” and “subject” lines of the emails - and were not
3
text searchable.
4
spreadsheets that were attached to the emails were “process[ed] and image[d]” and, therefore,
5
made unsearchable. Greenberg Decl. at 15. When Mr. Greenberg responded to an email from
6
Mr. Cochran about the hard drive on April 22, 2015, he again followed up on the extracted text
7
issue stating
Greenberg Decl. at 14-15; see also MTC at 8.
In addition, all Microsoft
10
[u]nfortunately, you have not answered my questions about the extracted text from
the emails you are producing and about the native excel files. I left you a voicemail
on Friday but you have not returned my call. Further to the voicemail I left you
earlier today, we will be contacting Magistrate Major’s chambers to arrange a
conference call with the judge
11
Id. at 3. Mr. Cochran responded by stating that the Joint Discovery Plan only required the
12
production of PDF documents and that the parties had “never discussed producing the hard drive
13
with extracted text, nor the . . . format of the hard drive production.” Id., Exh. 9 at 3.
8
9
14
On May 7, 2015, Mr. Cochran produced the Mircosoft Excel spreadsheets in native format
15
and explained “[p]reviously, you demanded that we provide the native files to you without
16
explanation. For the first time, you explained in your motion to compel why Kaplan needed the
17
files in native format.” ECF No. 63-1, Reply Declaration of David S. Greenberg (“Greenberg Reply
18
Decl.”), Exh. 12 at 4.
19
On May 12, 2015, Mr. Greenberg, offered “to pay 50% of your vendor’s final invoice -- up
20
to a total of $8,200 -- to produce the e-mails and attachments in the format we have specified
21
in our motion” despite its position that “Themis should rightfully bear any costs involved in
22
producing the emails with metadata and searchable extracted text.” Id. at 2. That same day Mr.
23
Cochran responded that Plaintiff would only produced the emails in native format if Defendant
24
wanted to pay the entire cost. Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
25
26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 34 reads:
27
28
4
These documents were identified as TBR 00000001 through TBR 00822493. Greenberg Decl. at 14-15; see
also MTC at 8.
4
14CV208-L (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise
stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents
or electronically stored information: (i) A party must produce documents as they are
kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond
to the categories in the request; (ii) If a request does not specify a form for
producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or
forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms;
and (iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in
more than one form.
FRCP 34(b)(2)(E)(i-iii).
DISCUSSION
8
Defendant seeks an order from the Court requiring
9
(1) [] Themis to reproduce, in native format, the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets
previously produced as static PDF images at control numbers THEMIS 000257
through THEMIS 001161; [and] (2) [] Themis to reproduce the email documents
previously produced as images bearing control numbers TBR00000001 through
TBR00822493, this time as images with associated metadata indicating at least the
following information for each document: custodian, [] beginning and ending
control number, [] sender, [] recipients, [] carbon copy recipients, [] subject/“re:”
line, [] date and time sent/received, [] control numbers for any “parent” message
or message attachments, and [] searchable, extracted message text, with such
images and metadata to be accompanied by (a) native Microsoft Excel versions of
any Excel files attached to these email communications, with placeholder images
or “sheets” within the image collection, identifying those attachments and their
control numbers, and (b) a load file compatible with the “Summation” litigation
review software
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MTC at 15-16. In support, Defendant argues that (1) the spreadsheets at issue are typically
18
maintained as Excel files not PDFs and Plaintiff’s production violates FRCP 34 which requires
19
parties to produce electronically stored information (“ESI”) in the manner in which it is ordinarily
20
maintained, (2) the spreadsheet PDFs are difficult to review and interpret because “in many
21
instances single rows of data appear broken across two non-consecutive pages,” (3) many of the
22
PDFs contain print that is so small it is “virtually illegible,” (4) Plaintiff is not excused from
23
producing native copies because Defendant refused a similar request, (5) producing the
24
spreadsheets in native form would impose “little to no burden or cost on” Plaintiff, (6) the current
25
state of the documents imposes a large burden on Defendant, (7) the emails as produced
26
constitute an impermissible “document dump,” and (8) the cost to reproduce the emails would
27
likely be minimal to Plaintiff. Id. at 8-16.
28
5
14CV208-L (BLM)
1
Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s request and contends that (1) Defendant’s request for native
2
Microsoft files is moot because Plaintiff provided Defendant with the native files, (2) the parties
3
agreed in the Joint Discovery Plan lodged with the Court that ESI would be produced in PDF
4
format, (3) Defendant has produced all of its documents in PDF format, (4) its production does
5
not violate FRCP 34 as Defendant omitted a key portion of the rule in its motion, (5) Defendant’s
6
cited cases do not support its position, (6) Defendant failed to specify the form of the production
7
in its discovery requests, (7) Defendant does not need the documents it is requesting because
8
its motion for summary judgment is due on May 22, 2015 and there are no issues of disputed
9
fact, and (8) it would cost Plaintiff $16,400 to reproduce the disputed documents, but that it
10
would do so if Defendant was willing to pay for it. Oppo. at 10-15; see also ECF No. 62-2,
11
Declaration of Keith M. Cochran (“Cochran Decl.”) at 2-3.
12
Defendant replies that the Joint Discovery Plan sets forth a procedure for requesting the
13
production of metadata that requires both sides to meet and confer regarding the request. Reply
14
at 5. Defendant states that it requested emails with basic metadata prior to the date Plaintiff
15
began processing emails for production, but that Plaintiff ignored the request, refused to meet
16
and proceeded to have its emails converted to non-searchable PDF documents. Id. at 5-6.
17
Defendant notes that at the time it asked for the emails to be produced with metadata, Plaintiff
18
would not have been required to duplicate production efforts or incur additional costs to provide
19
the metadata. Id. at 6.
20
opposition are distinguishable from the instant dispute because those cases involved metadata
21
requests that came after the producing party had produced documents without metadata. Id. at
22
7. Defendant further argues that the pending cross-motions for summary judgment have no
23
bearing on the instant dispute because if the motions are not granted, the discovery will be
24
necessary and if Defendant’s motion is granted, the emails will be relevant to Defendant’s
25
recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. Id. at 9. Defendant also states that it offered to pay half
26
of the costs necessary to resolve the instant motion, but Plaintiff refused. Id. at 3; Greenberg
27
Reply Decl. at 2. Finally, Defendant notes that shortly after the instant motion was filed, Plaintiff
Defendant argues that the cases Plaintiff cites to in support of its
28
6
14CV208-L (BLM)
1
“immediately produced [its pass rate] data in native format, mooting one part of [Defendant’s]
2
motion.” Id. at 2. Accordingly, the first part of Defendant’s request from the Court is now moot
3
and Defendant only seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to provide the relevant emails with
4
metadata.5 Id. at 9-10.
5
Analysis
6
In accordance with the Court’s May 27, 2014 Order Finding Early Neutral Evaluation
7
Inappropriate, Directing Rule 26 Compliance, and Setting Case Management Conference [ECF No.
8
20], the parties lodged a Joint Discovery Plan with chambers. The portion of the Joint Discovery
9
Plan that is currently at issue states:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
C.
Issues About Disclosure Or Discovery Of Electronically Stored
Information, Including The Form Or Forms In Which It Should Be
Produced – Rule 26(f)(3)(C)
The parties agree: (i) that they can limit searches for and production of
electronically stored information (“ESI”) to custodians reasonably likely to have
relevant information; and (ii) to avoid unduly burdensome searches, such as of
backup tapes or dynamic databases (including automatically deleted or overwritten
data), absent a showing of good cause. Responsive documents may be produced
in PDF format, unless otherwise agreed between the parties.
If a party believes, on a case-by-case basis, that documents should be produced in
a format other than native format, or that metadata should be produced, the parties
collectively agree that they will meet and confer in good faith to discuss such
alternative production arrangements.
The parties have further agreed that they will meet and confer in good faith to
ensure that the format of each party’s production is compatible with the technical
requirements of the receiving party’s document management systems.
20
ECF No. 62-4, Exhibit 1 to Oppo. (emphasis in original).
21
documents could be produced in PDF format, the parties recognized that certain documents may
22
need to be produced with metadata or in a non-PDF format and established a procedure for
23
requesting such a production. Id. In accordance with that provision, Defendant advised Plaintiff
After agreeing that responsive
24
25
26
27
28
5
Emails TBR00000001 through TBR00822493, with associated metadata indicating custodian, beginning and
ending control number, sender, recipients, carbon copy recipients, subject/“re:” line, date and time sent/received,
control numbers for any parent message or message attachments, and searchable, extracted message text, with such
images and metadata to be accompanied by (a) native Microsoft Excel versions of any Excel files attached to these
email communications, with placeholder images or sheets within the image collection, identifying those attachments
and their control numbers, and (b) a load file compatible with the “Summation” litigation review software. Reply at
9-10.
7
14CV208-L (BLM)
1
that it needed the spreadsheets and emails produced in the native format and attempted to meet
2
and confer with Plaintiff to discuss having Plaintiff’s emails and Microsoft Excel spreadsheets
3
produced with metadata. Greenberg Decl., Exh. 9 at 3, 5-12. Instead of actively meeting and
4
conferring as contemplated by the Joint Discovery Plan, it appears that Plaintiff initially ignored
5
the issue and Defendant's offer to meet and confer and later ended the meet and confer attempts
6
by stating that according to the Joint Discovery Plan, it was not required to produce the requested
7
documents in any format other than PDF. Id. After reviewing Defendant's motion to compel,
8
Plaintiff then changed its position on the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and produced them in
9
native format, but did not change its position on the emails at issue. Greenberg Reply Decl., Exh.
10
12 at 2, 4. The parties' stipulation trumps FRCP 34 and the parties were therefore required to
11
meet and confer in good faith regarding Defendant's request. Melian Labs Inc. v. Triology LLC,
12
2014 WL 4386439, *2 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2014) (finding the parties’ Joint Rule 26(f) Report to
13
be a stipulation as to ESI production and that accordingly, Rule 34(b) no longer governed).
14
Based on the evidence provided by the parties and for the reasons set forth herein, the
15
Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s request that Plaintiff reproduce the spreadsheets in native
16
format, GRANTS Defendant’s request for production of the emails with associated metadata in
17
searchable format, and REQUIRES Plaintiff to pay for the cost of reproducing the emails with
18
the associated metadata in searchable format. The Court finds that it is appropriate that Plaintiff
19
pay for the reproduction because Plaintiff ignored Defendant’s request to produce the documents
20
in the native format with metadata, failed to meet and confer with Defendant as required by the
21
Joint Discovery Plan, and then produced the documents in the unsearchable PDF format without
22
metadata. Had Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant as required by the Joint Discovery
23
Plan, the parties could have resolved this issue or sought assistance from the Court prior to
24
Plaintiff paying for the production of the emails as PDFs, and avoided the unnecessary expense
25
of a second production. Because Plaintiff’s actions are the reason a second production is
26
necessary, Plaintiff must bear the cost of that production. Plaintiff must produce to Defendant
27
by June 9, 2015 the following data:
28
8
14CV208-L (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TBR00000001 through TBR00822493 as images with associated metadata indicating
for each document the (1) custodian, (2) beginning and ending control number, (3)
sender, (4) recipients, (5) carbon copy recipients, (6) subject/“re:” line, (7) date
and time sent/received, (8) control numbers for any “parent” message or message
attachments, and (9) searchable, extracted message text, with such images and
metadata to be accompanied by (a) native Microsoft Excel versions of any Excel files
attached to these email communications, with placeholder images or “sheets” within
the image collection, identifying those attachments and their control numbers, and
(b) a load file compatible with the “Summation” litigation review software.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 26, 2015
9
10
11
12
B A R B A R A
L .
United States Magistrate Judge
M A J O R
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
14CV208-L (BLM)
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?