Romero et al v. Securus Technologies, Inc.

Filing 42

ORDER denying 32 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte MOTION for Discovery (Expedited) and Application for Order to Preserve and Restore Evidence. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 4/17/2017. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

JUAN ROMERO, FRANK
TISCARENO, and KENNETH
ELLIOTT, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO EXPEDITE
Plaintiffs, DISCOVERY AND FOR A
PRESERVATION ORDER

15

v.

16

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

17

Case No.: 16-cv-1283-JM-MDD

[ECF NO. 32]

Defendant.

18
19

Plaintiffs are two former inmates and a criminal defense attorney, all of

20

whom used Defendant’s telephone systems to make calls to and from certain

21

correctional facilities in California. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant recorded

22

a number of attorney-client calls in violation of California law. On May 27,

23

2016, Plaintiffs filed their class action Complaint in this Court asserting

24

federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

25

(ECF No. 1). A first amended complaint (“FAC”) was filed on July 26, 2016.

26

(Doc. No. 8.) On October 24, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting in

27

part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 21). A
1
16-cv-1283-JM-MDD

1

second amended complaint (“SAC”) was filed on November 7, 2016. (ECF No.

2

22). On January 26, 2017, the Court again granted in part and denied in part

3

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29). A third amended complaint

4

(“TAC”) was filed on February 8, 2017. (ECF No. 30). Another Motion to

5

Dismiss was filed by Defendant and granted by the Court on March 29, 2017.

6

(ECF No. 37). The TAC is now the operative pleading and was answered by

7

Defendant on April 12, 2017. (ECF No. 41).

8
9

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite Discovery and for a
Preservation Order, filed on March 10, 2017, some ten months after this

10

action was initiated. (ECF No. 32). Defendant responded in opposition on

11

March 31, 2017. (ECF No. 38). Plaintiffs replied on April 7, 2017. (ECF No.

12

39). As provided herein, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION

13
14

A. Motion for Preservation Order

15

In considering a motion for an order preserving evidence, the court is to

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

consider:
1) The level of concern the court has for the continuing existence and
maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question in the
absence of an order directing preservation of the evidence;
2) Any irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking the
preservation of the evidence absent an order directing preservation;
and
3) The capability of an individual, entity, or party to maintain the
evidence sought to be preserved.

23

Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., et al, No. 08-cv-1462, 2008 WL 4104473 *1

24

(September 3, 2008, S.D. Cal.) (citations omitted).

25

Plaintiffs support their motion by referring to an alleged “purge” of

26

certain recordings by Defendant in 2014 at the request of the San Diego

27

Sheriff. The alleged purge occurred years before this case was filed. The
2
16-cv-1283-JM-MDD

1

Court is satisfied with Defendant’s assertion that it recognizes and will abide

2

by its preservation obligations. The Court has no concern, based upon this

3

record, for the continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the

4

evidence in question. The Motion for an Order of Preservation is DENIED.

5

B. Motion for Expedited Discovery

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) states:

7

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties
have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding
exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when
authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.

8
9
10

In the instant case, Plaintiff may only obtain early discovery by court

11

order. In this Circuit, courts must find “good cause” to determine whether to

12

permit discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) conference. Good cause exists where

13

the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of

14

justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party. See, e.g., Arista

15

Records, LLC v. Does 1–43, 2007 WL 4538697 *1 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

16

Plaintiffs seek an order requiring an independent computer forensic

17

examiner to “examine” all digital storage devices in Defendant’s custody,

18

searching for recordings of calls, restore deleted data and produce such data

19

to Defendant’s counsel, all at Defendant’s expense. This demand would be

20

extraordinary even in the context of normal discovery. As a matter of

21

expedited discovery, it is beyond the pale, absent serious good cause. Here,

22

the asserted need is as a companion to the motion to preserve evidence. As

23

the Court has denied that motion, this motion similarly is DENIED.

24

The Court finds the timing of the instant motion confusing. Based upon

25

the materials provided, Plaintiffs appear to have been aware of the alleged

26

2014 purge of certain recorded calls. Yet, Plaintiffs waited approximately 10

27
3
16-cv-1283-JM-MDD

1

months after the filing of the Complaint to bring these motions. It is the

2

Court’s experience that motions to preserve and for early discovery typically

3

are brought promptly after the filing of the complaint. The timing of these

4

requests discounts their urgency and their need.
CONCLUSION

5
6
7
8

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery
and an Order Preserving Evidence is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED:

9
10

Dated: April 17, 2017

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4
16-cv-1283-JM-MDD