Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04240/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04240-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTIAGO VICTOR,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-04240-SBA (JCS)

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

DISPUTES

Re: Dkt. No. 85

Plaintiff Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (“Sunbelt”) and Defendant Santiago Victor (“Victor”) filed a 

Joint Letter addressing various discovery disputes on January 23, 2015. See generally Joint Letter 

(dkt. 85). 

A. The Parties’ Agreements

The Joint Letter states that the parties have reached agreements as to the following issues: 

(1) Victor’s Notice of Deposition to Sunbelt’s Person Most Knowledgeable Regarding Categories 

27, 28, and 29; (2) Sunbelt’s Production of Documents Bates Stamp Numbered 389−604; 

(3) Victor’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 19−23, 67, 54−59, 63, 67, and 72−79;

(4) Sunbelt’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 3, 6−9, 12, 13, 17, and 18; (5) Dates 

for Production and Service of Supplemental Responses; (6) Dates for Production of Electronically 

Stored Information; and (7) Privilege Logs. The parties have also reached partial agreements as to 

the following issues: (1) Victor’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 

14, and 28−49; and (2) Sunbelt’s Request for Production of Documents No. 20. The terms of 

these agreements as stated in the Joint Letter are hereby incorporated by reference and 

ADOPTED as an order of the Court. The parties shall produce documents, and Sunbelt shall 

produce a deposition witness, pursuant to the terms of the Joint Letter.

Case 4:13-cv-04240-SBA Document 86 Filed 01/27/15 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

B. Time Frame for Victor’s Request for Production of Documents Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 

11, 13, 14, and 28−49

The parties disagree as to the relevant time frame for documents to be produced in 

response to these requests. Victor seeks documents covering the “the entire course of his 

employment as a sales representative,” extending back to the 2007 date when he began a 

“Jumpstart Training” program and through the date of his resignation on August 19, 2013. Joint 

Letter at 1−2. Sunbelt argues that its allegations relate only to the period from February 1, 2013 

through August 19, 2013. Id. at 2. As a compromise, Sunbelt is willing to produce documents 

extending back to January 1, 2010.

The Court finds Sunbelt’s proposed compromise to be reasonable. A discovery period 

extending more than three years before Sunbelt’s allegations will provide sufficient evidence of 

the steps Sunbelt took to protect proprietary information. Documents from before 2010 are 

unlikely to add relevant information, particularly given the parties’ agreement to limit Sunbelt’s 

corporate representative’s testimony to the period from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 

2014. See id. at 1. Sunbelt is therefore ORDERED to produce documents dating from January 1, 

2010 through August 19, 2013 in response to these requests.

C. Sunbelt’s Request for Production of Documents No. 20

Victor is ORDERED to disclose the telephone number and service provider of the 

telephone issued by his employer so that Sunbelt can subpoena records relating to that telephone. 

The Court is not persuaded that Victor’s employer’s interests justify withholding basic identifying 

information for the telephone.

D. Victor’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order

The Joint Letter also references Victor’s motion to modify the scheduling order in this 

case. That motion has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a report and 

recommendation, and will be addressed separately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:13-cv-04240-SBA Document 86 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2