Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04144/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

ORDER – No. 19-cv-04144-LB

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

San Francisco Division

CHEVRON MINING INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04144-LB

ORDER DIRECTING PRODUCTION

OF SKANSKA/TETRA TECH 

ARBITRATION RECORDS

Re: ECF No. 34

The court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the subject matter and procedural history of 

this case. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs (collectively, “Chevron”) sought expedited discovery and an 

order directing defendant Skanska USA Civil West Rocky Mountain District, Inc. to produce 

transcripts of deposition and hearing testimony in connection with an arbitration between Skanska 

and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., as well as any related settlement (the transcripts and settlement 

collectively, the “Arbitration Materials”).1 The court ordered that Chevron could take expedited 

discovery of Skanska.

2 Skanska has not produced the Arbitration Materials. Skanska 

acknowledges that it is capable of producing the Arbitration Materials electronically with little 

 

1 Pls. Mot. for Prelim. Injunction or Expedited Discovery – ECF No. 7 at 5. Citations refer to material 

in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the 

top of documents.

2 Order – ECF No. 32.

Case 3:19-cv-04144-LB Document 38 Filed 09/11/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – No. 19-cv-04144-LB 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

effort.

3 The only burden it claims is that Tetra Tech may sue it if it produces the Arbitration 

Materials without a court order directing it to do so.4 Skanska and Tetra Tech take the position that 

the court’s prior order permitted Chevron only to take discovery but did not order Skanska to 

actually produce the Arbitration Materials, or at least did not order Skanska to produce the 

Arbitration Materials outside the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.5

The court hereby orders Skanska to produce the Arbitration Materials. Specifically, pursuant to 

Rule 34(b)(2), and for good cause shown (as discussed in the court’s prior order), the court 

shortens the time for Skanska to respond to Chevron’s request and orders Skanska to produce the 

Arbitration Materials by September 13, 2019 at noon. Cf. BF&W Assocs. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 

C5-02381 JF HRL, 2006 WL 8442394 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2006) (court shortening discoveryresponse deadline under Rule 34(b)(2) to avoid “a procedural ‘gotcha’ that elevates form over 

substance and deprives plaintiff of relevant discovery”).6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

3

Id. at 10.

4 Def. Opp’n to Pl. Mot. to Set Compliance Deadline – ECF No. 35 at 2–3.

5

Id. Skanska maintains that Chevron has not issued a formal document request on Skanska pursuant to 

Rule 34. Id. at 2. The court is not in a position to evaluate this claim or the full history of precisely 

what form Chevron’s requests to Skanska have taken to date. This issue would appear to be easily 

mooted: to the extent that Chevron has not issued a formal document request pursuant to Rule 34, it 

can do so now and moot the issue.

6

In addition to the Arbitration Materials (i.e., transcripts and the settlement), the parties raise a dispute 

regarding expert reports from the Skanska/Tetra Tech arbitration. Chevron did not include expert 

reports within the definition of “Arbitration Materials” that it sought for immediate production. See

Pls. Mot. for Prelim. Injunction or Expedited Discovery – ECF No. 7 at 5, 23. The court declines to 

shorten the deadline for production of arbitration expert reports, without prejudice to Chevron’s 

requesting those reports through the standard procedures set out in Rule 34.

Case 3:19-cv-04144-LB Document 38 Filed 09/11/19 Page 2 of 2