Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00136/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00136-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-00136-JST (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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

IAN ILJAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RIPLEY ENTERTAINMENT INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 18-cv-00136-JST (LB) 

ORDER ADDRESSING DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE 

Re: ECF No. 43 

This order further documents the court’s decisions during the discovery hearing on February 

28, 2019 regarding the parties’ discovery dispute.1

First, this employment-discrimination case is subject to the district’s Initial Discovery 

Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action.2

 That protocol requires the defendant 

to produce within 30 days after its responsive pleading the following documents (among others): 

communications with the plaintiff; certain communications about him (involving his managers, 

supervisors, and human-resources representatives); all documents concerning the formation and 

termination of the employment relationship; his personnel file; his performance evaluations and 

 

1

 Joint Letter Brief – ECF No. 43; see Discovery Order – ECF No. 47. 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

 Compl. – ECF No. 1; Standing Order – ECF No. 15-2. 

Case 3:18-cv-00136-JST Document 49 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 3
ORDER – No. 18-cv-00136-JST (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 Californi

a

formal discipline information; documents relied on to make the employment decision; workplace 

policies relevant to the adverse action (a category that covers Ripley’s employment-severance 

policy); and the table of contents and index of any handbook or policies and procedures manual in 

effect. These required disclosures cover most or all of the disputes. 

Second, the plaintiff essentially challenges the inadequacy of the defendant’s production. The 

defendant produced over 18,000 pages of ESI (based on running key terms and producing all 

documents retrieved); the plaintiff’s counsel — a sole practitioner — characterized this as a data 

dump that contained mostly irrelevant information.3 This suggests that the defendant’s counsel is 

not being sufficiently proactive to ensure that his client is conducting thorough and appropriate 

document searches. Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., No. C 11-05452 CW (DMR), 2013 WL 3967750, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2013). The Federal Rules put an affirmative obligation on an attorney to 

ensure that a client’s search for responsive documents and information is complete. Id. The 

Protocol requires it too. Defense counsel intimated at the hearing that he cannot do anything if 

there is no information. That may be true, but it seems unlikely that there is not responsive 

information. 

In any event, to ensure that the productions are complete, the court orders the defendant to 

produce all information required by the district’s Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment 

Cases Alleging Adverse Action by March 15, 2019. With regard to the ESI and the severance 

policies, the defendant suggested a further meet-and-confer by the parties, and the court orders that 

process. The court cautions that this discovery ought to be easy and not difficult. The court 

expects the parties to work diligently in the next two weeks (by March 15) to identify a process to 

assure adequate responses to the plaintiff’s requests for production. The defendant estimates that 

the production process will take four to six weeks. The court will allow that timeline (which will 

not affect the current case schedule) but expects a firm production plan to be in place by March 

15. 

 

3

 Joint Letter Brief – ECF No. 43 at 1–5. 

Case 3:18-cv-00136-JST Document 49 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 3
ORDER – No. 18-cv-00136-JST (LB) 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 Californi

a

As for the interrogatories, the defendants again estimate that the time to identify and produce 

underlying documents is four to six weeks, which presumably affects the time to provide updated, 

verified responses to the interrogatories. Again, the court will allow that process. 

For interrogatory 8, the defendant has not sufficiently identified the burden. It seems unlikely 

that electronic payroll records that predate 2011 do not exist. Electronic payroll records generally 

permit an electronic search by category. If there really is a burden, the defendant may raise it more 

particularly, but it must make an effort to produce the relevant information. 

The court orders the production of the color copy of the document and photograph without 

prejudice to the defendant’s raising any burden issue. The court discussed on the record the 

ordinary means of identifying duplicate copies of documents in ESI. This should not be a 

burdensome process. 

The parties resolved the issue about the adequacy of discovery about the plaintiff’s 

replacement. The issue is moot. 

At the hearing, the court explained that its letter-brief process replaces the ordinary motion to 

compel. The letter brief is the motion, essentially, and the court can always order more formal 

briefing if it needs it. The letter-brief process is meant to allow a collaborative, less-expensive, and 

faster means of resolving disputes. Because often (as here) adequate productions take time, the 

letter brief operates to allow any further challenges to the sufficiency of the defendant’s 

productions. After the defendant certifies that production is complete, then within two weeks, the 

parties can file a joint letter addressing any remaining issues regarding the sufficiency of the 

production and the burdens for any greater production of responsive information. 

This resolves ECF No. 43. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 1, 2019 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-00136-JST Document 49 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 3