Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05286/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05286-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TUTOR-SALIBA CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-02-5286 CW (EMC)

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF

SPECIAL MASTER RE PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO PRODUCE ELECTRONIC

DOCUMENTS

(Docket No. 602)

Plaintiffs have filed an objection to Special Master Justice Hanlon’s order of April 14, 2005. 

See Docket No. 578. Pursuant to the order appointing Special Master herein, the scope of review is

de novo. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby AFFIRMS Justice Hanlon’s order.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 30, 2005, Justice Hanlon issued an order granting the Tutor Defendants’ motion to

compel Plaintiffs to produce documents responsive to the Fourth Set of Document Requests. See

Docket No. 544. Plaintiffs were instructed to “produce all documents both hard copy and electronic

documents responsive to the Fourth Request . . . within ten days.” 

On April 11, 2005, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Justice Hanlon, asking for a 120-day extension

for completion of the production of electronic documents only. See Poplawski Decl., Ex. A. 

Plaintiffs argued that this extension was “reasonable and necessary to permit Plaintiffs to conduct

the necessary physical task of restoring and recovering responsive material that is contained on

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 618 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

inaccessible media such as the backup tapes, and to resolve questions regarding those media, such as

the optical disks, which Plaintiffs do not possess the means to access and read.” The Tutor

Defendants opposed the request for an extension. See Poplawski Decl., Ex. B. 

On April 14, 2005, Justice Hanlon issued an order which stated in part as follows:

The Special Master has read and considered Plaintiffs’

requested extension, the Tutor Defendants’ objections thereto and

Plaintiffs’ reply. The Special Master finds that the matter of the

request for an extension was not submitted for decision until the close

of business on April 14, 2005, the date of the ordered production. To

deny the request for even a brief period would set the plaintiffs for

failure to comply with the Order. Therefore, the Special Master finds

that good cause exists and there is no showing of prejudice to allow

Plaintiffs a period within which to complete their production

responsive to Tutor Defendants’ Fourth Set of Requests for Production

of Documents. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to comply with the

production of documents under the March 30, 2005, Order within 15

days of the entry of this order.

Docket No. 578.

Plaintiffs now object to this April 14 order of Justice Hanlon and ask for an extension of 90

days (instead of 120) to produce electronic documents responsive to the Fourth Set of Document

Requests -- i.e., “until July 13, 2005.” Obj. at 10.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Tutor Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice

The Tutor Defendants have asked the Court to take judicial notice of various documents filed

in this case. Plaintiffs have not objected to the request for judicial notice. Accordingly, the Court

takes judicial notice that such documents were filed in the case.

B. Tutor-Defendants Objections to Declarations Submitted by Plaintiffs

In support of their objections, Plaintiffs submitted two affidavits, one from counsel Kristine

Poplawski and another from a senior investigator with the City Attorney’s Office Gary Shweid. The

Tutor Defendants have made evidentiary objections with respect to both declarations.

First, the Tutor Defendants challenge both of the declarations because they were not

submitted to Justice Hanlon for consideration. The Court overrules this objection. Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 53(g)(1) provides that, “[i]n acting on a master’s order, report, or recommendations,

the court must afford an opportunity to be heard and may receive evidence . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 618 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

53(g)(1) (emphasis added). Here, the Court shall, in the exercise of its discretion, consider the two

declarations because they simply flesh out the claims made by Plaintiffs in their April 11 letter to

Justice Hanlon. The Court cautions the parties, however, that they should ordinarily present all

necessary evidence in the first instance to Justice Hanlon.

Second, the Tutor Defendants argue that both of the declarations are vague and ambiguous

because they address only a small portion of the documents and ignore the remainder that should be

produced. The Tutor Defendants also assert that the declarations do not set forth how long Plaintiffs

have been working on the production, what efforts they have made to complete the production, and

so forth. The Court overrules both objections. The objections go to the merits.

Third, the Tutor Defendants object to the Shweid declaration because, in the signature line,

Plaintiffs simply typed in Mr. Shweid’s name even though he is not an attorney with an e-filing

number. The Court shall temporarily overrule this objection and give Plaintiffs an opportunity to

provide either a scanned signature or an attestation. Given that the Shweid declaration was e-filed

by an attorney with an e-filing number, i.e., Ms. Poplawski, it is reasonable to assume that Plaintiffs

can easily provide an attestation and that the failure to do so was likely an oversight. Plaintiffs shall

have a week from the filing of this order to provide a declaration with either a scanned signature or

an attestation.

Fourth, the Tutor Defendants object to paragraph 3 of the Shweid declaration because it is

based on a legal conclusion. The Court overrules the objection. Paragraph 3 is not a legal

conclusion.

Fifth, the Tutor Defendants object to paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the Shweid declaration

because they are based on hearsay. The Tutor Defendants appear to be challenging those parts of

the declaration where Mr. Shweid states that he was told of certain facts by another person -- more

specifically, that (1) he was told by Ms. Poplawski that the Tutor Defendants were seeking

documents created as early as 1995, see Shweid Decl. ¶ 5; that (2) he was told by John Payne, IT

Director for the Airport, that the Airport possesses some “miscellaneous” back-up takes that have

never been restored, see id. ¶ 6; and that (3) that he was told -- implicitly by Ms. Poplawski – that

there are four servers and one hard drive from which electronic material must be recovered. See id.

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 618 Filed 05/10/05 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The Court therefore gives little weight to the Tutor Defendants’ allegation (assuming it is true)

that Plaintiffs are “co-mingling” documents. 

4

¶ 7. The Court overrules the objection to paragraph 5 as moot. It is clear from the face of the Fourth

Set of Document Requests that documents dating as far back as 1995 are sought by the Tutor

Defendants. The Court also overrules the objection to paragraph 6 as moot. In their letter of April

11 to Justice Hanlon, Plaintiffs represented that there were back-up tapes that had not been

recovered and the Tutor Defendants did not challenge that claim. Finally, the Court shall

temporarily overrule the objection to paragraph 7. As noted above, implicitly, Mr. Shweid was told

of the exact number of servers and hard drives by Ms. Poplawski. Plaintiffs shall be given an

opportunity one week from the filing of this order to provide a supplemental declaration from

counsel, confirming, based on personal knowledge, the exact number of servers and hard drives. 

The Court notes that, if a hearing had been conducted on this matter, it would have been satisfied

with an oral representation from counsel; a supplemental declaration accomplishes the same.

C. Plaintiffs’ Request for an Extension Until July 13

The Court acknowledges the document requests contained in the Fourth Set are broad, not

only in terms of subject matter but also in terms of time.1 Because electronic documents are sought

from the 1990s, it is not surprising that much if not all of that information is on back-up tapes or

inactive computer network servers. Information in such formats is not easily retrievable. Similarly,

because electronic documents are sought from the 1990s, it is not surprising that Plaintiffs may not

have all of the hardware or software to access some of the information.

On the other hand, Plaintiffs have had some six months to produce documents responsive to

the Fourth Set. Though some of that time was likely expended for the production of hard copy

documents, there should have been more headway on the production of electronic documents. 

Presumably, Mr. Shweid is not the only resource of Plaintiffs who can retrieve the information from

the tapes or servers. Even if Mr. Shweid were the only City resource, Plaintiffs have not

demonstrated that they could not hire an outside consultant to assist in the production efforts. As for

review of the electronic documents, Plaintiffs have not indicated why additional City attorneys or

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 618 Filed 05/10/05 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

legal assistants could not assist in the efforts or, for that matter, outside attorneys or legal assistants

from Farella Braun.

Having considered the papers filed in support and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ objections to

Justice Hanlon’s order, the Court agrees with Justice Hanlon’s order that lengthy extension is

unwarranted. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to produce the documents at issue within 15 days of date

of this Order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 602.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2005

 /s/ 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-05286-CW Document 618 Filed 05/10/05 Page 5 of 5