Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01768/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01768-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

LING LA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01768-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 62

A month before the close of fact discovery, the parties presented a dispute over production 

from the defendant’s first set of document requests, served only two months ago. While the joint 

letter focused on disagreements over ESI, the broader issues concern the breadth of the requests 

and the lack of production by the plaintiff. During the telephone hearing today, I expressed my 

incredulity and displeasure that these threshold issues are being raised so close to the end of fact 

discovery, evidencing that neither side has litigated the case at the standards expected in any court, 

let alone this one.

I have no basis to question plaintiff’s representation that there are thousands of emails in 

plaintiff’s personal email account that make it necessary to develop an ESI protocol. That

protocol should have been negotiated and agreed to last summer. I note that it is simple to search 

one’s emails by date and by name of recipient(s)/sender(s), and that the relevant time frame for 

this case is relatively narrow. That leads me to think that the quickest and surest way to produce 

the relevant, unprivileged documents is for plaintiff and her counsel to identify them and to print 

them out rather than sort by means of still-to-be-negotiated search terms and produce them 

pursuant to a still-to-be-negotiated ESI protocol, but that is the parties’ decision to make.

My decision is to get this case back on track. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in 

Case 3:14-cv-01768-WHO Document 64 Filed 05/28/15 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

the morning on May 29, 2015 to agree on the ESI protocol if it is necessary. The potential ESI 

discovery at issue here is not the sort that warrants cost-shifting, and defendant will not be 

required to cover plaintiff’s costs. 

Defendant’s requests for production, for the most part, identify specific issues that are 

relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Plaintiff is ordered to produce all relevant,

responsive documents to each of defendant’s requests except Number 4 by June 8, 2015, and by 

that date to produce a privilege log that adequately describes each document withheld (including 

the date of the document, a brief description, the sender/recipient, and basis for withholding). 

Plaintiff need not list any communications solely with her litigation counsel because they are 

obviously protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

If plaintiff asserts that a particular request is overbroad, she shall produce the documents 

that she believes are relevant to that request according to her reasonable interpretation of it, and 

explain by June 8, 2015 in a supplemental response how she narrowed the request. If defendant 

disagrees, it shall meet and confer with plaintiff by June 10, 2015. Further delay in this case is 

unacceptable. It should go without saying, but it seems to be necessary in this case, that I expect 

the parties to work in good faith and to cooperate with each other in order to complete discovery 

within the deadlines set forth above and in the Civil Pretrial Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01768-WHO Document 64 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2