Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02862/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02862-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441wd Removal- Wrongful Death

---

1

16cv2862-BEN-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBORAH MAIORANO, 

individually, and as Successor In 

Interest to ANTHONY MAIORANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOME DEPOT USA, INC., and,

RESIN PARTNERS, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2862-BEN-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION 

FOR DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS 

FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS

[ECF NO. 29]

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties, filed on October 5, 

2017, to determine a discovery dispute regarding each of the Defendants’ 

responses to requests for production (“RFP”). (ECF No. 29). At issue are 

Defendants’ responses to four RFPs each. For Defendant Home Depot, at 

issue are its responses to RFP Nos. 1, 4, 7, and 8. (ECF No. 29 at 4-9). For 

Defendant Resin Partners, at issue are its responses to RFP Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 

13. (ECF No. 29 at 10-19). 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 32 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2

16cv2862-BEN-MDD

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

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to 

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of 

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response 

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive 

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be 

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another 

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that 

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the 

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding 

party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession, 

custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is 

not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the 

possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the 

document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the 

document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

DISCUSSION

A. Threshold Issues

Defendants assert that the Court should not entertain the instant 

motion because Plaintiff did not comply with this Court’s Chambers Rules 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 32 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3

16cv2862-BEN-MDD

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

regarding the presentation of discovery disputes. (ECF No. 29 at 27-28). 

Defendants claim that the instant motion is untimely under this Court’s “30-

day rule.” Also, Defendants assert that the parties were required to meet and 

confer regarding the dispute in person as counsel are located in the same 

district. 

1. 30-day Rule

Regarding the “30-day rule,” this Court’s Chambers Rules section 

IV.C.2 provides that in regard to written discovery requests:

Any motion related to discovery disputes must be filed no later than 

thirty (30) days after the date upon which the event giving rise to the 

dispute occurred. ... For written discovery, the event giving rise to the 

discovery dispute is the date of service of the response, not the date on

which counsel reach an impasse in meet and confer efforts.

The 30-day rule is consistent with the duty of the Court and parties to “to 

secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and 

proceeding.” Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Plaintiff agrees that the date of service of Defendants’ discovery 

responses was June 30, 2017, and that the responses were received July 3, 

2017. Plaintiff asserts that in response to concerns raised with the 

production, Defendants produced additional documents on September 11, 

2017. Plaintiff asserts that since the supplemental production did not resolve 

the dispute, the dispute arose on that date, making this instant motion 

timely. Plaintiff appears to be suggesting that because Defendants later 

produced additional information in response to meet and confer efforts, the 

30-day rule was reset with the subsequent production. 

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s interpretation of the rule. If 

Plaintiff was correct, the 30-day rule would lose its meaning in the face of 

rolling production and disagreements about production, followed by 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 32 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4

16cv2862-BEN-MDD

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

additional production. The point of the 30-day rule is to compel parties 

timely to address disputes and to allow the Court effectively to monitor 

discovery and timely to intervene. The Court regularly receives joint motions 

from parties asking to extend the 30-day rule on the very grounds as exist 

here. These motions allow the Court to monitor the progress of discovery 

and, if necessary, hold a discovery conference or hearing to ensure the 

parties’ pace and diligence. In this Court’s experience, even prisoners 

involved in litigation have known to file motions to extend the 30-day rule for 

good cause. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s 30-day 

rule. Enforcing the rule can have harsh consequences. The Court is mindful 

that granting or denying discovery impacts the progress and potentially the 

resolution of a case. Doing so on procedural grounds, rather than reaching 

the merits, is unpleasant. Consequently, the Court will reach the merits of 

the dispute but only in a cursory manner – the Court will examine the 

dispute to determine whether the issues presented are so material to the case 

that it would be fundamentally unfair to fail fully to consider the merits. 

2. Meet and Confer Requirements

The Court’s Chambers Rules paragraph IV.A. provides: “Counsel must 

meet and confer on all issues before contacting the Court. If counsel are 

located in the same district, the meet and confer must be in person.” 

Defendants assert that the Court should not hear this discovery dispute 

because counsel for the parties are located in the Central District of 

California and the required meet and confer sessions were initiated and 

conducted by Plaintiff by telephone, email or written correspondence. The 

Rule addresses all parties; Defendants were obliged to insist on a personal 

meeting or bring the matter to the Court. Defendants’ failure to object and 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 32 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5

16cv2862-BEN-MDD

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

acquiescence to Plaintiff’s error waives their objection. Otherwise, 

sandbagging would be encouraged. 

B. The Merits

1. Home Depot’s Responses

Regarding RFPs 1, 4, 7, and 8, Defendant Home Depot has agreed to 

provide additional responsive documents. The Court has two concerns. First, 

Home Depot’s responses that it will be producing additional documents is 

insufficient under Rule 34(b)(2)(B). It is incumbent upon the producing party 

to produce responsive documents either within the time specified in the 

request or “another reasonable time specified in the response.” Rule 

34(b)(2)(B). Home Depot should have provided a reasonable date certain by 

which the additional responses would be forthcoming. The Court ORDERS 

such additional production to be completed no later than 14 days from the 

date of this Order. 

Home Depot’s responses raise a more serious concern. In response to 

these RFPs, Home Depot initially asserted that it had no responsive 

documents. After Plaintiff presented Home Depot with responsive documents 

from Defendant Resin Partners, which reflected correspondence with Home 

Depot personnel, Home Depot conducted additional searches and found 

responsive documents. This calls into question the reasonableness of the 

initial searches conducted by Home Depot. This is the sort of thing that can 

result in serious sanctions under Rule 37 and under Rule 26(g). But, 

considering the circumstances of this motion, and the fact that responsive 

materials have been located and are being produced, the Court will decline to 

consider sanctions at this time. Home Depot is cautioned to be significantly

more diligent in the future.

In Home Depot’s response to RFP No. 8, it takes the position that an 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 32 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6

16cv2862-BEN-MDD

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

RFP calling for “all design and development documents . . .” does not include 

correspondence about the design and development documents. The Court 

finds no fault with Home Depot here. Had Plaintiff requested “all documents 

pertaining to the design and development of [the sawhorse],” we would have 

a different outcome. But, asking only for design and development documents 

is a narrower request and does not extend to all documents about the design

and development of the product. No further response is required.

2. Resin Partners

a. RFP Nos. 6 and 8

In RFP No. 6, Plaintiff requested the production of “[a]ll design 

drawings for the Husky 23 inch compact sawhorse, 2 pack manufactured by 

you.” In RFP No. 8, Plaintiff requested the production of “[a]ll design and 

development documents for the Husky 23 inch compact sawhorse, 2-pack 

manufactured by you.” In response to RFP No. 6, Resin Partners produced 

the design drawings for the sawhorse sold to Plaintiff but initially did not 

disclose designs for subsequent versions of the product. In response to 

correspondence from Plaintiff, Defendant Resin Partners disclosed design 

documents for a later version of the product. In response to RFP No. 8, Resin 

Partners produced the same design documents produced in response in RFP 

No. 6, including the later produced subsequent product design documents and 

produced test results for the product purchased by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff challenges the manner in which Resin Partners responded to 

RFP No. 6. Plaintiff asserts that when pressed for a further response from 

Plaintiff, Defendant responded with 1300 pages of material without 

identifying the responsive material contained within. Plaintiff appears to be 

conflating the differing requirements of Rules 33 and Rule 34. Under Rule 

33(d), a party can respond to an interrogatory by instead producing business 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 32 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7

16cv2862-BEN-MDD

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

records but the party must specify the records to be reviewed in sufficient 

detail and identify them as readily as the responding party could. Plaintiff’s 

complaint would be well-founded if this was a response to an interrogatory. 

Rule 34, however, has no such specification requirements. Defendant 

produced responsive information. Plaintiff’s assertion that this production of 

1300 pages of material is tantamount to a “data dump” is not-well-founded. 

Regarding RFP No. 8, Plaintiff asserts that the responsive information 

should have included such things as design schedules, budgets, materials, 

emails, meeting minutes and videos/photographs of testing. Defendant 

asserts that if Plaintiff wanted this information, Plaintiff should have 

specifically asked for it. Defendant has the upper hand here. Rule 

34(b)(1)(A) provides that a party requesting production of documents “must 

describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be 

[produced].” The term “documents” without a supporting definition, does not 

provide the level of specificity required by the Rule. Nevertheless, Defendant 

has stated that it has produced responsive information. No further response 

is required. 

b. RFP No. 7

Plaintiff requests the production of “[a]ll documents related to testing of 

the Husky 23 inch compact sawhorse, 2-pack manufactured by you, 

specifically all test reports.” Defendant initially responded by producing test 

reports for the sawhorse purchased by Plaintiff. Upon request, Defendant 

later produced test reports for the re-designed product. There is no apparent 

dispute here.

c. RFP No. 13

Plaintiff requests “[a]ll documents reflecting communications between 

[Resin Partners] and Home Depot relating to the design and manufacture of 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 32 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8

16cv2862-BEN-MDD

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

any folding plastic sawhorse, including what eventually became the Husky 23 

inch compact sawhorse, 2-pack.” Plaintiff complains that Defendant should 

have produced documents for a sawhorse product called the “Workhorse 23.” 

Defendant responds that Plaintiff should have specifically requested such 

documents. Regardless, Defendant claims to have produced the responsive 

information. Plaintiff’s bald assertion that Defendant’s production “appears” 

incomplete is not persuasive. There is no dispute here. No further response 

is required. 

CONCLUSION

With the exception of requiring Defendant Home Depot to produce the 

additional materials that it has agreed to produce by a date certain, 14 days 

from the date of this Order, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, as presented in the 

instant Joint Motion, otherwise is DENIED. No sanctions will be imposed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2017

 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 32 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8