Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ALEX ANG and LYNN STREIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 13-cv-01196 WHO (NC)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE Plaintiffs Re: Dkt. No. 86
v.
BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.,
Defendant.
The parties have filed a joint discovery statement in which Bimbo Bakeries asks the Court to extend certain deadlines set by the Court in its May 14, 2014, discovery order. Dkt. Nos. 80, 86. The Court finds that this dispute is suitable for resolution without a hearing and vacates the hearing set for June 11, 2014. After considering the parties’ joint statement, their proposed orders, as well as the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Deadline to Produce Documents Related to Pre-Class Period Discovery and Products Not Sold in California
In previous discovery disputes presented by the parties, Bimbo Bakeries argued that discovery in this case should be limited in scope to information from the class period and should exclude products Bimbo Bakeries alleges were not sold in California. See Dkt. No. Case No. 13-cv-01196 WHO (NC) ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
*2 80. The Court rejected these arguments and ordered Bimbo Bakeries to amend its discovery responses and produce all responsive, non-privileged documents by May 28, 2014. Id.
Bimbo Bakeries now requests a 90-day extension of the May 28 deadline as it relates to pre-class period discovery and products not sold in California (parts 1 and 3 of the Court’s May 14 order). Bimbo Bakeries asserts that the deadline set by the Court should be modified because the parties’ prior briefing and arguments “were focused on . . . discoverability . . . and did not address e-discovery issues, much less the amount of time that it would take for BBUSA to actually produce responsive documents.” Dkt. No. 86 at 2. This problem is, to a large extent, of Bimbo Bakeries’ own making. Before the Court set the May 28 deadline, it informed the parties of its tentative ruling to order the disputed discovery and gave the parties a further opportunity to meet and confer and propose limitations on the discovery based on the anticipated burden and benefit. Dkt. No. 72. Rather than investigating what specific efforts and time would be required to produce responsive documents and raise any such issues before the Court resolved this dispute, Bimbo Bakeries chose to rely on blanket assertions that no discovery was appropriate and waited until the Court ruled against it. Bimbo Bakeries’ failure to raise these issues earlier is not a good cause for the requested extension.
Bimbo Bakeries further argues that the May 28 deadline is not workable because “virtually all responsive information will exist within BBUSA’s electronic systems” and the parties will need to meet and confer regarding an e-discovery protocol and search criteria. Dkt. No. 86 at 2-3. Bimbo Bakeries’ asserted reasons for the 90-day extension, however, amount to little more than general statements about “the complexities of e-discovery.” As acknowledged in this District’s Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI, “[d]iscoverable information today is mainly electronic.” This District has made available a model Stipulated Order Re: Discovery of ESI, as well as guidelines that encourage parties to discuss the preservation, collection, search, review, and production of ESI as early as possible at the outset of the case. This case was filed on March 18, 2013. The Court is not convinced that Bimbo Bakeries has shown diligence and good cause to justify the requested Case No. 13-cv-01196 WHO (NC) ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
*3 90-day e extension. Based on th he parties’ j joint discov very stateme ent, the Cou urt finds tha at a 1 1 modest e extension is s appropriat te, and exte ends the Ma ay 28 deadl ine to July 14, 2014. 2 2 A dditionally, , by June 16 6, 2014, the e parties mu ust file eithe er a propose ed stipulate ed order 3 3 regardin ng ESI disco overy and a a proposed s stipulated p protective or rder, or a jo oint stateme ent 4 4 setting f forth their p positions on n these issue es. 5 5 2. Deadl line to Prod duce Finan ncial Inform mation 6 6
Bi imbo Baker ries request ts an extens ion until Ju une 18, 2014 4, to produc ce documen nts in 7 7 complia ance with pa art 2 of the May 14 ord der regardin ng financial l informatio on, and plain ntiffs 8 8 agree to the extensi ion. Dkt. N No. 86 at 4. The reques sted extensi ion is grant ted. 9 3. Deadl line to Serv ve Supplem mental Disc covery Resp ponses 0 Bi imbo Baker ries request ts an extens ion until Ju une 10, 2014 4, to serve i its supplem mental 1 response es to plainti iffs’ interro gatories an d documen nt requests, a and plaintif ffs agree to the 2 extensio on. Dkt. No o. 86 at 4. T The request ted extensio on is grante d. 3 4. Addit tional Disco overy Disp ute 4
Th he parties’ j joint discov very stateme ent also ind dicates that the parties dispute wh ether 5 Bimbo B Bakeries’ pr roduction o of document ts should be e limited to o products a at issue in th his 6 case. D kt. No. 86 a at 3, 6. By June 23, 20 014, the par rties must m meet and co nfer in an a attempt 7 to resolv ve their disa agreement a and file a jo oint discove ery statemen nt regarding g this dispu ute. 8 An ny party ma ay object to o this non-d dispositive d discovery or rder within n 14 days un nder 9 Federal Rule of Civ vil Procedur re 72(a). 0 IT T IS SO OR RDERED.
1 2 D ate: June 9, , 2014 ____ __________ __________ _____ Nath hanael M. C Cousins 3 Unit ted States M Magistrate J Judge 4
5
6
7
8
Case No ORDER . 13-cv-0119 96 WHO (N NC) SPUTE R RE: DISCO OVERY DIS