Perez v. United States of America et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute regarding 30(b)(6) Deposition. Plaintiffs motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants are ORDERED to produce screen shots of the audit trail metadata for the annotations on the fetal heart rate monitoring strip no later than 14 days following the date of this Order. The requested further deposition is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 11/21/17. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

I. PEREZ, a minor, by and through
his Guardian ad Litem, ISRAEL
PEREZ; and NORMA PEREZ,

Case No.: 16cv1911-JAH-MDD
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
REGARDING F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)
DEPOSITION

Plaintiffs,
v.

16

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al.,

17

Defendants.

[ECF NO. 18]

18
19

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties to determine a

20

discovery dispute filed on November 20, 2017. (ECF No. 18). The dispute

21

pertains to evidence of when annotations on electric fetal monitoring strips

22

were made. Plaintiffs requested that the Defendants produce a witness

23

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) prepared to testify on a number of topics

24

including the times that the annotations were made. Plaintiffs assert that

25

the witness was not prepared on that topic and that there must be an

26

additional examination. Defendants claim that because the actual time of

27

the annotations are contained within the metadata of Essentris, the
1
16cv1911-JAH-MDD

1

commercial electronic health record used by the Department of Defense, the

2

information is not “readily available.”

3

Defendants principally rely on U.S. ex rel Carter v. Bridgepoint Educ.,

4

Inc., 305 F.R.D. 225, 246 (S.D. Cal. 2015). While this Court agrees entirely

5

with the Court’s analysis and ruling in that case, the issue presented in this

6

case is far narrower. Simply stated, the issue in Bridgepoint was the

7

production of metadata for a large number of documents where the

8

propounding party failed to request the documents in their native format.

9

The dispute here involves a very small amount of metadata, apparently

10
11

easily obtainable.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the witness produced by

12

Defendants was not adequately prepared on the issue of when the

13

annotations were created in the Essentris file regarding this birth. The

14

Court also agrees with Defendants that the Court need not order a further

15

deposition, rather that the Court should order, if relevance is determined,

16

that Defendants produce screen shots of the audit trail metadata for the

17

annotations on the fetal heart rate monitoring strip, which will reflect the

18

actual date and times that the annotations were created.

19

The Court finds that the date and time that the annotations were

20

created is relevant. The evidence could be used to impeach testimony

21

regarding the accuracy of the annotations if the metadata reflects a delay in

22

entering the information.

23

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, as presented in this Joint

24

Motion, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants are

25

ORDERED to produce screen shots of the audit trail metadata for the

26

annotations on the fetal heart rate monitoring strip no later than 14 days

27

following the date of this Order. The Court declines to require Defendants to
2
16cv1911-JAH-MDD

1

produce a properly prepared witness under Rule 30(b)(6) to testify about the

2

metadata at this time. Plaintiffs are not precluded, however, from pursuing

3

further discovery regarding the metadata that it will receive.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2017

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
16cv1911-JAH-MDD