Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-00446/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-00446-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STARVONA HARRIS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 10/5/17 JOINT 

LETTER RE: HARRIS’S FIRST SET OF 

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Re: Dkt. No. 80

On October 5, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter concerning the sufficiency of Defendant 

Best Buy’s responses to Plaintiff Starvona Harris’s first set of requests for production of 

documents. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 80.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks supplemental responses to 

Request Nos. 1-3, 5, and 7. Id. at 1. In opposition, Best Buy has offered to supplement its 

responses 30 days before trial. Id. at 2. This is unacceptable under the Federal Rules. Indeed, all 

documents should be produced when they are discovered, as the parties have an ongoing 

obligation to supplement their discovery responses when they learn new information. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26. While this surely does not require Best Buy to provide daily updates, waiting 30 days 

before trial is unreasonable and contravenes the spirit of Rule 26. Thus, as Plaintiff is entitled to 

supplemental information, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding how often that 

information shall be supplemented after the district court decides the pending motion for class 

certification, which would presumably close the class period.

Notwithstanding, Best Buy’s contention that Plaintiff should have raised these issues when 

the responses were the subject of the May 30, 2017 meet and confer is well taken. Plaintiff is 

advised that future efforts to compel discovery on previously resolved disputes will not be well 

received unless she clearly articulates why the dispute is being brought so belatedly. In this case, 

Case 4:17-cv-00446-HSG Document 90 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

however, it is reasonable for Plaintiff to seek supplemental information based on Best Buy’s 

untenable position regarding supplementation. 

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks the names of the putative class members and PAGA-aggrieved 

employees. (Joint Letter at 3.) Best Buy opposes this request and states that employees may 

contact Plaintiff if they are so inclined. Id. at 4. Best Buy argues that the Court already required it 

to provide contact information for 500 employees. Id. While true, the undersigned now orders Best 

Buy to produce the employee ID numbers for those employees whose contact information was 

furnished on September 8, 2017. (See 9/8/17 Order, Dkt. No. 72.) For the sake of clarification, 

Best Buy shall provide a document that matches each employee ID to each name and contact 

information, and shall do so within 14 days of this order.

Given the growing number of seemingly minor discovery disputes, the Court is concerned 

with the parties’ apparent inability to meet and confer and resolve their disputes without court 

intervention. Thus, going forward, the parties are reminded of their obligation to comply with the 

Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct, which requires that “[b]efore filing a 

motion, a lawyer should engage in a good faith effort to resolve the issue. In particular, civil 

discovery motions should be filed sparingly.” Northern District Guidelines for Professional 

Conduct § 10(a) (available at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/professional_conduct_guidelines).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00446-HSG Document 90 Filed 10/26/17 Page 2 of 2