The Eclipse Group LLP v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 96

ORDER Requiring Supplemental Pleadings Regarding Intervenor's #83 MOTION to Compel . The Court orders Intervenor to file a supplemental pleading on or before 4/19/2017. Defendant may file a response to the supplemental pleading on or before 4/26/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 4/7/2017.(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Case No.: 15cv1411-JLS (BLM)

THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP,

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADINGS REGARDING
INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

TARGET CORPORATION, et al,

14

Defendants.

15
16

On March 7, 2017, Intervenor filed a motion to compel which was later stricken at the

17

request of Defendants in order to permit the parties to meet and confer in an effort to resolve

18

the discovery dispute. ECF No. 74, 74, 78. On March 8, 2017, the Court ordered “the parties to

19

meet and confer regarding the discovery issues addressed in Intervenor Plaintiff’s Motion to

20

Compel” and to file a Joint Status Report detailing the efforts. ECF No. 78 at 2. The parties filed

21

their Joint Status Report and included a number of legal objections and discovery compromises

22

proposed by Defendants. ECF No. 81 at 9-13. After reviewing the Joint Status Report, the Court

23

ordered Intervernor to file his motion to compel and stated that if Intervenor is moving to compel

24

a further response to any of the discovery requests described in Exhibit A of the Joint Status

25

Report, he “must describe Defendants’ proposed compromise or objection and explain why the

26

compromise is not appropriate and/or why the objection is not legally correct. ECF No. 82 at 1-

27

2 (emphasis added). Intervenor filed his motion to compel on March 23, 2017 [ECF No. 83-1

28

(“MTC”)] and Defendants filed their opposition on March 30, 2017 [ECF No. 88 (“Oppo.”)].
1

15cv1411-JLS (BLM)

1

In his motion to compel, Intervenor requests that the Court compel responses to sixty

2

(60) requests for production of documents, twenty-eight (28) requests for admissions, and

3

twenty-six (26) interrogatories. ECF Nos. 85-1 – 85-6. Generally speaking, the discovery

4

requests are very broad. Id. Defendants objected to the requests but for many of the requests,

5

Defendants offered to respond to a revised and narrowed version of the original request. ECF

6

No. 85-11. Despite the Court’s explicit order requiring Intervenor to explain why Defendants’

7

proposed compromises were not acceptable and why their objections were legally insufficient,

8

Intervenor failed to do so.1

9

On April 4, 2017, Defendants filed a Supplemental Declaration of Jason Cirlin in

10

Opposition to Intervenor’s Second Motion to Compel [see ECF No. 91 (“Cirlin Supp. Decl.”)]

11

stating that they
emailed to Intervenor Stephen Lobbin, the following supplemental responses: (a)
Defendant Kmart Corporation’s Supplemental Responses to Intervenor’s Requests
for Production of Documents, (b) Defendant Target Corporation’s Supplemental

12
13
14

Responses to Intervenor’s Requests for Production of Documents, (c) Defendant
Kmart Corporation’s Supplemental Responses to Intervenor’s Requests for
Admission, (d) Defendant Target Corporation’s Supplemental Responses to
Intervenor’s Requests for Admission, (e) Defendant Kmart Corporation’s
Supplemental Responses to Intervenor’s Interrogatories, (f) Defendant Target
Corporation’s Supplemental Responses to Intervenor’s Interrogatories,
incorporating the results of the meet and confer process between counsel. The
production of documents is being finalized and will be completed prior to Friday

15
16
17
18
19
20

April 7, 2017.

21

Cirlin Supp. Decl. at 2. In light of Defendants’ representations, the Court believes that the

22

pending discovery dispute may be resolved or narrowed.

23

supplemental declaration which specific responses were supplemented and whether or not the

Because it is unclear from the

24
25
26
27
28

1

For example, with respect to Interrogatories 1-9, Intervenor states that “Defendants proposed
revisions (only in some instances), but still have not answered anything. Moreover, their
limitations on scope are not proper objections, but they may state the limitations of the
information in their response.” MTC at 9. Intervenor fails to state specifically what Defendants’
propose, fails to explain why Defendants’ proposed compromise is unacceptable, and fails to
adequately address Defendants’ legal objections.
2

15cv1411-JLS (BLM)

1

supplemental responses are satisfactory to Intervenor, the Court ORDERS Intervenor to file a

2

supplemental pleading on or before April 19, 2017, clearly stating for each and every request,

3

if the supplemental response and production has obviated the need for the motion to compel a

4

response and, if not, what Defendants provided in the supplemental response or production,

5

why the response or production is still insufficient, and why Defendants’ proposed compromise

6

for the request is not acceptable. Defendants may file a response to the supplemental pleading

7

on or before April 26, 2017.

8

The Court notes that many of Intervenor’s original discovery requests are overbroad and

9

not proportional to the needs of the case as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).2

10

Accordingly, it is important that Intervenor heed the Court’s order and provide the specified

11

information regarding Defendants’ supplemental responses, production, and offers to

12

compromise. A failure to do so may result in the Court denying Intervenor’s motion to compel

13

further responses because Intervenor will not have provided sufficient law and facts to justify

14

the broad discovery requests.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: 4/7/2017

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court reminds Intervenor that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) were amended
in December 2015 and the appropriate standard for the scope of discovery under FRCP26(b)(1)
which used to authorize parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense” and courts to “order discovery of any matter relevant
to the subject matter involved in the action,” has been modified to permit parties to obtain
discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case.” FRCP26(b)(1) (emphasis added). In his motion to
compel, Intervenor states that “all of the discovery sought is relevant information” and that “the
relevancy of the requests and interrogatories at issue is obvious as stated,” but fails to provide
any specific facts or argument and fails to address the proportionality of the requests. MTC at
2, 4.
3

15cv1411-JLS (BLM)