Kwasniewski et al v. sanofi-aventis U.S., LLC et al

Filing 134

ORDER Denying 121 Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order granting in part their Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

JENNIFER KWASNIEWSKI, individually and as
Special Administrator of the ESTATE OF
ANDREW A. KWASNIEWSKI; TAYLOR L.
KWASNIEWSKI; DYLAN A. KWASNIEWSKI, a
minor, by and through Jennifer Kwasniewski, his
mother and guardian,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, a Delaware limited )
liability company; NADINE LEONE, MFT;
)
BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE OPTIONS, INC., a )
Nevada corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK
ORDER

13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Jennifer Kwasniewski, Taylor L. Kwasniewski, and Dylan

15

A. Kwasniewski’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting

16

in part their Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 121). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is

17

denied.

18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

The facts surrounding this Motion are adequately set forth in Magistrate Judge Koppe’s

20

order and will not be recited here. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel complained that Defendant

21

Sanofi-Adventis U.S., LLC (“Sanofi”) had not properly responded to their discovery requests

22

because when Sanofi produced documents, it failed to provide any statement identifying to which

23

request the produced documents were responsive. Sanofi replied that it had produced the

24

documents as they were kept in the usual course of its business. Magistrate Judge Koppe granted

25

the motion in part, requiring that Sanofi identify each specific request to which it had responded.

Page 1 of 3

1

However, Magistrate Judge Koppe held that Sanofi was not required to link specific documents

2

with each corresponding specific request, Plaintiffs needed only make a “reasonable effort” to

3

identify the desired information. Plaintiffs now object to Magistrate Judge Koppe’s holding that

4

Sanofi was not required to link specific documents with specific requests, arguing that it

5

improperly shifts the burden of discovery.

6
7

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

When reviewing the order of a magistrate judge, the order should only be set aside if the

8

order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); LR IB 3-1(a); 28 U.S.C. §

9

636(b)(1)(A); Laxalt v. McClatchy, 602 F. Supp. 214, 216 (D. Nev. 1985). A magistrate judge’s

10

order is “clearly erroneous” if the court has “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

11

been committed.” See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Burdick v.

12

Comm’r IRS, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). When reviewing the order, however, the

13

magistrate judge “is afforded broad discretion, which will be overruled only if abused.”

14

Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. Cal. 2007). The district judge

15

“may not simply substitute its judgment” for that of the magistrate judge. Grimes v. City and

16

County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. BNS, Inc.,

17

858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)).

18

III.

DISCUSSION

19

Nothing in Plaintiffs’ objections gives rise to a “definite and firm conviction that a

20

mistake has been committed.” Magistrate Judge Koppe properly noted that under Fed. R. Civ. P.

21

34(b)(2)(E)(i), a party is entitled to produce documents as they are organized and kept in the

22

usual course of business. Rule 34 does not require a responding party to organize documents to

23

suit the requesting party’s convenience, but simply requires that the documents be organized in

24

such a manner that the requesting party may, with reasonable effort, obtain the documents

25

responsive to their requests. City of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 578, 584

Page 2 of 3

1

(C.D. Cal. 2011). Upon reviewing the documents, Magistrate Judge Koppe determined that

2

Sanofi’s production complied with Rule 34 because the documents were organized as they were

3

kept in the usual course of business. Magistrate Judge Koppe further determined Sanofi had

4

provided enough information about the organization that Plaintiffs, with reasonable effort, could

5

determine the documents responsive to their requests. Plaintiffs’ complaint that performing a

6

single search per request did not lead them to the exact information they were seeking is not

7

sufficient to cast doubt on the Magistrate Judge’s determination.

8

IV.

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order

10
11

CONCLUSION

granting in part their Motion to Compel (ECF No. 121) are DENIED.
DATED this 29th day of October, 2013.

12
13

_____________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3