Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02160/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02160-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SASAN MIRKARIMI, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEVADA PROPERTY 1 LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company dba

The Cosmopolitan Hotel of Las Vegas;

DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12cv2160-BTM (DHB)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT

MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

[ECF No. 75] 

On October 10, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery

Dispute. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff requests the Court to compel Defendant to produce all

documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production for which Defendant has agreed

to produce documents, and to order Defendant to provide supplemental responses to select

interrogatories and requests for production. Having considered the arguments of the parties

and the applicable law, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

motion to compel, as set forth below. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on July 12, 2012 by filing a complaint

in the San Diego Superior Court alleging that Defendant recorded telephone calls with

12cv2160-BTM (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02160-BTM-DHB Document 76 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 8
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

California consumers without their consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy

Act, Cal. Pen. Code § 632, et seq. (ECF No. 1.) The action was removed to federal court

on August 31, 2014. (Id.) According to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to

certify the following class: “[A]ll natural persons who, while residing in and physically

present in the State of California, and during the applicable statute of limitations: (1)

participated in at least one telephone communication with a live representative of defendants

that was recorded by defendants; (2) were not notified by defendants that their telephone

communication was being recorded; and (3) are identifiable through defendant’s records.” 

(ECF No. 8 at ¶ 10.) 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standards

The threshold requirement for discoverability under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure is whether the information sought is “relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). In addition, “[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of any

matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not

be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The relevance standard is thus commonly recognized

as one that is necessarily broad in scope in order “to encompass any matter that bears on, or

that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in

the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing Hickman

v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). 

However broadly defined, relevancy is not without “ultimate and necessary

boundaries.” Hickman, 329 U.S. at 507. Accordingly, district courts have broad discretion

to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751

(9th Cir. 2002); Vonole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009)

(“District courts have broad discretion to control the class certification process, and

‘[w]hether or not discovery will be permitted . . . lies within the sound discretion of the trial

court.’”) (citing Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 209 (9th Cir. 1975)). District

2 12cv2160-BTM (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02160-BTM-DHB Document 76 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 8
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

courts also have broad discretion to limit discovery. For example, a court may limit the

scope of any discovery method if it determines that “the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). 

Generally at the pre-class certification stage, discovery in a putative class action is

limited to certification issues such as the number of class members, the existence of common

questions, typicality of claims, and the representative’s ability to represent the class. 

Oppenheimer Fund, 437 U.S. at 359. Although discovery on the merits is usually deferred

until it is certain that the case will proceed as a class action, the merits/certification

distinction is not always clear. Facts that are relevant to the class determination frequently

will overlap with those relevant to the merits of the case. See Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes,

--- U.S. ---, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551-52 (2011) (explaining that often the “rigorous analysis”

under Rule 23(a) “will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim. 

That cannot be helped.”). 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

The parties have engaged in a lengthy meet and confer process concerning discovery

in this case. Over the past six months, the Court has extended the class certification

discovery cutoff four times, and has granted six extensions of time to bring any discovery

disputes to the Court. (See ECF Nos. 55, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72.) During the meet

and confer process, Defendant agreed to produce several categories of documents following

an internal investigation to locate and collect responsive data. Plaintiff now moves to

compel, on the ground that Defendant’s production is incomplete. Specifically, Plaintiff

identifies eight categories of documents of which Defendant agreed to produce documents,

but has not yet done so. Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to Interrogatories

Nos. 17 and 25, and Request for Production No. 128. Defendant does not dispute that it has

agreed to produce the requested information and documents to Plaintiff. Defendant states

that it is has been working diligently to collect the information Plaintiff requests, and

anticipates completing its production shortly. 

/ / /

3 12cv2160-BTM (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02160-BTM-DHB Document 76 Filed 10/22/14 Page 3 of 8
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. Outstanding Document Production

Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to produce any documents for the following

categories, despite Defendant’s agreement to produce them: (1) the recording policies,

procedures, and practices that were in effect during the class period; (2) the telephone lines

used for outbound calls that were recorded during the class period, the names and addresses

of individuals to whom those calls were made, and the identity of the agent who participated

in each call; (3) any instances in which Defendant’s agents provided a notice or warning that

a call may be recorded, or in which a caller asked whether the call was being recorded; (4) 

call system and recording system data concerning the subject telephone calls; (5) audio

recordings that were made during the class period, the recordings that still exist, the policies,

practices, and procedures for maintaining and preserving the recordings, and identification

of the audio files; (6) the names contact information, and job titles of current or former

personnel in Defendant’s Information Technology (“IT”) department; (7) information

reflecting spa reservations made by telephone; and (8) the name, address, and telephone

number of California customers in Defendant’s loyalty program (the “Identity” program),

together with information about the inbound and outbound calls from or to those individuals

and reservations that were made via telephone during the class period. (ECF No. 75 at 6-7.) 

The Court will address each category separately, below. 

a. Recording Policies and Procedures (RFP No. 5)

 Defendant contends that it has, in fact, produced many documents in response to

Plaintiff’s request for policy and procedure documents. (ECF No. 75 at 16-17.) Defendant

states it has produced its “Resort Services Standard Operating Procedures,” “Quality

Assurance” documents, and voluminous documents regarding its NICE recording system. 

It appears Defendant has complied with this request by producing documents in its

possession and control. To the extent Defendant may have additional documents responsive

to RFP No. 5, the Court directs Defendant to produce the documents to Plaintiff by October

31, 2104.

/ / /

4 12cv2160-BTM (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02160-BTM-DHB Document 76 Filed 10/22/14 Page 4 of 8
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

b. Telephone Lines Used for Outbound Calls (RFP No. 36)

Defendant explains that it encountered technical difficulties that have hindered and

delayed its ability to produce documents responsive to RFP No. 36. Defendant indicates that

its production should be complete by the end of the month. In the meantime, Defendant

states that it will produce all call recordings it has in its possession, as well as all NICE

system metadata. The NICE system metadata contains a record of all inbound and outbound

calls, and includes the customer phone number, agent number and name, and the date, time

and duration of each call. The Court directs Defendant to produce all documents responsive

to RFP No. 36 by October 31, 2014. 

c. Notice or Warning of Recording (RFP Nos. 18-20)

Defendant does not address this category of documents in its portion of the Joint

Motion. The Court finds that if the information responsive to RFP Nos. 18-20 is not

included in the production of the call recordings, Defendant must produce any additional

responsive documents by October 31, 2014.

d. Call System and Recording System Data (RFP No. 35)

Again, Defendant does not specifically address this category of documents. However,

it appears that Defendant’s production of documents regarding the NICE recording system

was responsive to this request. However, to the extent Defendant may have additional

documents responsive to RFP No. 35, the Court directs Defendant to produce the documents

to Plaintiff by October 31, 2104.

e. Audio Recordings (RFP Nos. 44, 47, 48, 50, & 122-124)

Defendant indicates that it will produce all call recordings from the class period that

it has in its possession. Defendant states that it has already produced documents that relate

to its policies, practices, and procedures for preserving recordings in the NICE recording

system. The Court directs Defendant to produce all outstanding documents responsive to

RFP Nos. 44, 47, 48, 50, and 122-124 by October 31, 2014. 

/ / /

/ / /

5 12cv2160-BTM (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02160-BTM-DHB Document 76 Filed 10/22/14 Page 5 of 8
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

f. IT Department Personnel Contact Information (RFP No. 128)

Defendant indicates that it will produce the requested information concerning its IT

personnel by October 17, 2014. Defendant states it plans to provide Plaintiff with the names,

job titles, and hire dates of current IT personnel, and will produce documents reflecting

names, job titles, hire and termination dates, and last known contact information for former

IT personnel. The Court finds Defendant’s proposed response is sufficient. To the extent

Defendant has not already done so, Defendant shall produce documents responsive to RFP

No. 128 by October 31, 2014.

g. Information Reflecting Spa Reservations (RFP Nos. 131-132)

Defendant states that it has endeavored to produce all reservation records, including

records from its SpaSoft reservation system. So far, Defendant has been able to retrieve and

produce information from its room reservation and dining reservation systems. However,

Defendant has been unable to access the requested information from its SpaSoft system. 

Defendant explains that it does not possess a “data dictionary” for its SpaSoft software, and

therefore, is presently unable to extract and produce the spa reservations information to

Plaintiff. Defendant states it will continue its efforts to retrieve the data, and will

immediately provide Plaintiff with the results. 

Considering the factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), the

Court finds that the burden on Defendant to extract the spa reservation data outweighs its

likely benefit at this stage in the litigation. Accordingly, the Court declines to compel

Defendant to produce spa reservations data at this time. Nevertheless, Defendant is

encouraged to continue its efforts to extract the data, and if successful, to produce the

information to Plaintiff in an expeditious manner. 

h. Loyalty Program Information (RFP Nos. 133-136)

Defendant indicates that it will produce the requested information regarding its loyalty

program. Accordingly, Defendant is directed produce documents responsive to RFP Nos.

133-136 by October 31, 2014.

/ / /

6 12cv2160-BTM (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02160-BTM-DHB Document 76 Filed 10/22/14 Page 6 of 8
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. Interrogatories Nos. 17 and 25

Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant to produce further responses to

Interrogatories Nos. 17 and 25. Interrogatory No. 17 requests that Defendant identify each

outbound call made by Defendant during the class period to a California telephone number

on a recorded line, including the telephone number dialed, the date, time, and duration of the

call, the name, address, and telephone number of each person associated in Defendant’s 

records with each telephone number dialed, and the name and contact information of the

agent who handled the call on behalf of Defendant. (ECF No. 75-18 at 6.) Plaintiff argues

Defendant’s response to Interrogatory No. 17 is deficient because Defendant has not

identified outbound calls, but rather only provided documents that identify toll-free numbers

that are used for inbound calls. Plaintiff states Defendant also failed to identify which lines

were recorded and has not provided the information identifying the persons called or the

customer service agents who handled the calls. In response, Defendant indicates that it will

provide the NICE system metadata from the class period. Based on Defendant’s description

of what the metadata includes, the Court finds that production of the NICE system metadata

will be sufficient to answer Interrogatory No. 17. However, to the extent the metadata does

not distinguish inbound calls from outbound calls, Defendant is directed to specifically

identify which calls were outbound. Defendant shall provide a supplemental response to

Interrogatory No. 17 by October 31, 2014.

Interrogatory No. 25 requests Defendant to list the telephone numbers operated by

Defendant during the class period that were used to make outbound calls to California

telephone numbers, limited to telephone lines on which Defendant recorded some or all of

the calls. (ECF No. 75-19 at 5.) Plaintiff states Defendant’s response to this interrogatory

is incomplete because Defendant failed to identify which lines were recorded. The Court

finds Defendant’s response is insufficient. Accordingly, Defendant is directed to provide a

supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 25, that specifically identifies the outgoing

telephone lines that were recorded during the class period. Defendant shall provide the

supplemental response by October 31, 2014. 

7 12cv2160-BTM (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02160-BTM-DHB Document 76 Filed 10/22/14 Page 7 of 8
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. Request for Production No. 128

Finally, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to provide a supplemental response to

RFP No. 128. As discussed above, Defendant states it will produce the information

regarding its IT personnel that is requested in RFP No. 128. Accordingly, the Court directs

Plaintiff to provide a supplemental response as agreed by October 31, 2014.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel

is GRANTED. Defendant shall produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s outstanding

Requests for Production for which Defendant agreed to produce documents, including RFP

Nos. 5, 18-20, 35, 36, 44, 47, 48, 50, 122-124, 128, and 133-136, and shall provide

supplemental responses to Interrogatories Nos. 17 and 25, and RFP No. 128 on or before

October 31, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2014

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

8 12cv2160-BTM (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-02160-BTM-DHB Document 76 Filed 10/22/14 Page 8 of 8