Barrett v. Apple Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 25, 2022
• Docket: 5:20-cv-04812
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 CARL BARRETT, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04812-EJD (VKD)

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE FACT DISCOVERY PLAN v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 86 11 APPLE INC., et al., Defendants. 12

13 14 At the Court’s direction, the parties have submitted proposed plans for the completion of 15 fact discovery. Dkt. No. 86. They agree on some aspects of the plan but disagree on others. The 16 principal disagreements concern the scheduling of depositions and Apple’s obligations in 17 responding to plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 23. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 83. 18 1. Depositions 19 With respect to depositions, Apple reports that it has moved for a protective order 20 preventing plaintiffs from obtaining Rule 30(b)(6) deposition discovery of Apple pending Judge 21 Davila’s resolution of Apple’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Dkt. No. 85. Apple 22 objects to setting any deadlines for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions until its protective order motion is 23 resolved. Dkt. No. 86 at 6-7. Plaintiffs propose May 27, 2022 as the date for completion of Rule 24 30(b)(6) depositions, arguing that there is no justification for delay and observing that Judge 25 Davila denied Apple’s earlier motion for a stay of discovery. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs also object to any 26 requirement that the parties coordinate the individual and corporate designee depositions of 27 individual witnesses, as Apple proposes. Id. at 5, 7. 1 party’s discovery must be contingent on another party’s discovery. All parties must use the 2 authorized discovery procedures to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the 3 action, and must confer with each other on a discovery plan. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, 26(f); see also 4 Russell v. Maman, No. 18-cv-06691-RS (AGT), 2020 WL 5943844, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020) 5 (“There is no legal precedent giving a party the right to demand discovery in a certain order . . . . 6 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a party to make unilateral decisions regarding 7 the sequence and timing of depositions during discovery.”). As the parties recognize, the Court 8 has authority to manage discovery and to require coordination in the interest of justice. See Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c) and advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment 10 (“The revisions in Rule 26(b)(2) are intended to provide the court with broader discretion to 11 impose additional restrictions on the scope and extent of discovery . . . . The revision also dispels 12 any doubt as to the power of the court to impose limitations on the length of depositions under 13 Rule 30 or on the number of requests for admission under Rule 36.”); Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 14 U.S. 574, 598-99 (1998) (describing trial court’s broad discretion to dictate the timing sequence of 15 discovery and limit the time, place, and manner of discovery). 16 With respect to the timing of their Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Apple, plaintiffs do not 17 explain why the deposition should proceed before the substantial completion of document 18 production; rather, they focus solely on the fact that they served a notice for this deposition last 19 summer. See Dkt. No. 83 at 2-4; Dkt. No. 86 at 4-5. The Court is not persuaded that requiring 20 Apple to produce a witness or witnesses to testify on behalf of the company now serves any of the 21 interests identified in Rule 1, particularly given that very little progress has been made in the 22 production of documents that might inform a corporate designee’s testimony. For this reason, the 23 Court will not require Apple to provide Rule 30(b)(6) testimony before the substantial completion 24 of document production relating to class certification issues. However, the Court will require that 25 Apple proceed more expeditiously with that document production. 26 2. Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 23 27 The parties also disagree regarding Apple’s obligations with respect to plaintiffs’ Request 1 not micromanage the resolution of discovery disputes but reminds the parties of the need to confer 2 in good faith to resolve such disputes. Those they cannot resolve may be submitted to the Court 3 for resolution using the expedited discovery procedures set out in Judge DeMarchi’s Standing 4 Order for Civil Cases (available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/judges/demarchi- 5 vkd/Standing-Order-for-Civil-Cases-February-2022.pdf). 6 3. Discovery Plan 7 In the circumstances presented, the Court believes the following discovery plan will best 8 serve the interests of justice and efficiency in this action: 9 Discovery Event Deadline 10 Apple to produce first tranche of responsive February 28, 2022 11 documents for the specific custodians and search terms to which the parties agreed, as reflected in 12 plaintiffs’ Oct. 27, 2021 letter to Apple and 13 Apple’s Nov. 1, 2021 email to plaintiffs (“Custodial Documents”) 14 Apple to substantially complete production of April 15, 2022 15 Custodial Documents 16 Deadline for substantial completion of document August 26, 2022 production re class certification issues 17 18 Deadline for completion of fact discovery, February 24, 2023 including depositions, re class certification 19 issues 20 21 The Court encourages the parties to coordinate the scheduling of individual and Rule 22 30(b)(6) depositions to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on individual witnesses; however, the 23 Court does not require that witnesses be deposed in both capacities on the same day. The parties 24 may take party depositions before the deadline for substantial completion of document production 25 if they so agree. Otherwise, the Court expects the parties to schedule party depositions to occur 26 after August 26, 2022. If any party believes a compelling reason justifies taking a party deposition 27 before August 26, 2022, and that party cannot obtain the opposing parties’ agreement regarding 1 question to the Court for resolution using the expedited discovery procedures set out in Judge 2 |} DeMarchi’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. 3 Judge Davila has not set a case management schedule in this case, and the undersigned 4 || does not intend the foregoing discovery plan to preempt or interfere with any case management 5 deadlines the presiding judge may set in the future. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: February 25, 2022 8 9 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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