Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00751/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00751-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

JANE ROE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRITO-LAY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00751-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 2/22/16 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTERS; ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 75 & 76

On January 27, 2016, Plaintiff Jane Roe filed a discovery letter brief, because Defendant 

Frito-Lay did not participate in the drafting of the letter. (Letter, Dkt. No. 68 at 1.) The letter 

related to allegedly deficient discovery responses served in October 2014. Id. On February 8, 

2016, the undersigned terminated the letter, and ordered the parties to meet and confer. (Dkt. No. 

70.) The parties were then directed to file joint letters that comply with the Court’s standing order 

should they be unable to resolve any remaining disputes without court intervention. Id.

On February 22, 2016, the parties filed two, separate joint letters regarding Defendant’s 

deficient responses to discovery.1 The first letter concerns Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s 

Special Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, 8-10, and 20.2(Joint Letter #1, Dkt. No. 75.) The second letter 

concerns Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 6, 14-

16, 18-20, 23-25. (Joint Letter #2, Dkt. No. 76.)

On March 1, 2016, the Court held a telephonic phone conference with the parties. 

 

1

The parties are admonished for their failure to lodge chambers copies of the joint letters as 

required by Civil L.R. 5-1(e)(7). (See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 4.)

2

The parties included Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 23 in the letter, even though they appear to have 

resolved any disputes pertaining to those requests. (Joint Letter #1 at 3.) Since these issues have 

been resolved, the Court will not address them, but expects Defendant to fully respond as agreed 

without undue delay.

Case 4:14-cv-00751-HSG Document 78 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCOVERY LETTERS

The Court’s standing order requires that a joint discovery letter contain, “[w]ith respect to 

each issue relating to the unresolved dispute, a detailed summary of each party’s final substantive 

position and their final proposed compromise on each issue, including relevant legal authority.” 

(See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13(c).) Here, instead of addressing each 

unresolved dispute, Defendant provided the same boilerplate “position” for every disputed request:

“Plaintiff has requested several different figures that would need to come from multiple different 

sources, and Defendant is diligently working to ascertain precisely which portion of this 

information is available or ascertainable, and will supplement its responses as soon as 

practicable.” (See, e.g., Joint Letter #1 at 1.) This is not responsive to the individual requests at 

issue nor does the rote response provide Defendant’s rationale for why it did not fully respond to 

Plaintiff’s narrowed requests, i.e. why it continues to dispute the relevancy, breadth or meaning of 

the discovery requests in dispute, which directly violates the Court’s standing order. 

In addition, Defendant’s boilerplate responses to the requests for production of documents 

directly contravene the Court’s standing order, which states: 

In responding to requests for documents and materials under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 34, all parties shall affirmatively state, in a written response 

served on all other parties, the full extent to which they will produce 

materials and shall, promptly after the production, confirm in 

writing that they have produced all such materials so described that 

are locatable after a diligent search of all locations at which such 

materials might plausibly exist. It shall not be sufficient to object 

and/or to state that “responsive” materials will be or have been 

produced.

(Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 14)(emphasis added). Here, Defendant represents

that it is still searching for documents and will supplement “as soon as practicable.” This is 

woefully deficient. There is no indication that Defendant has undertaken a diligent search, as 

required by the federal rules, and Defendant cannot satisfy its discovery obligations by promising 

to provide the information on a date uncertain. Furthermore, Defendant’s apparent refusal to 

furnish a privilege log is indefensible.3(Joint Letter #2 at 5.)

 

3 Defendant does not address the privilege log issue, because it opted for the same, deficient

boilerplate response. Thus, the Court assumes that Defendant refused to furnish a privilege log.

Case 4:14-cv-00751-HSG Document 78 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

On the merits, the Court finds that all of the disputed interrogatories and requests for 

production of documents are relevant and reasonable as narrowed in scope by Plaintiff as set forth 

in the joint letters. Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to supplement its responses to Special 

Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, 8-10, and 20, and Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 6, 14-16, 

18-20, 23-25, on or before March 11, 2016. Specifically, in supplementing its responses to the 

requests for production of documents, Defendant shall produce all responsive, non-privileged 

documents by that date, and, if applicable, a privilege log for any documents it believes are 

justifiably withheld. (Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 20).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00751-HSG Document 78 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 3