Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-02101/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-02101-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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 JOSE DIVISION

STEVEN PRESCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

RECKITT BENCKISER LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-02101-BLF (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

ESI SEARCHES AND DEFENDANT’S 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Re: Dkt. No. 54

Plaintiff Steven Prescott and defendant Reckitt Benckiser LLC (“RB”) ask the Court to 

resolve several disputes involving RB’s production of documents, as well as Mr. Prescott’s 

proposed protocol for discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”). Dkt. No. 54. The 

Court held a hearing on November 10, 2020. Dkt. No. 59.

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court orders as follows:

1. ESI search terms: The Court directs the parties to select a custodian or custodians 

from among the 18 custodians RB has identified, apply their respective proposed search strings, 

confer and perhaps refine their proposed search strings, and attempt to reach agreement on 

proposed search strings that do not yield an unreasonable number of non-responsive documents 

and that adequately capture likely responsive documents. If a dispute remains, the parties may file 

another discovery dispute letter on this issue.

2. Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 11, 12 and 15: RB must produce 

documents responsive to these requests.

3. Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 19: The dispute regarding this request is 

limited to whether RB should or should not be required to produce documents regarding chemical 

Case 5:20-cv-02101-BLF Document 61 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 2
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

formulas for Woolite Laundry Detergent that were considered but never manufactured or sold. 

RB need not produce chemical formulas that were merely considered, as Mr. Prescott has not 

shown that this discovery is relevant to any claim or defense in the case.

4. Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 21: The parties shall confer further 

regarding the scope of this request. If, as RB represents, the NAD investigation encompassed 

advertising claims unrelated to the “color renewal” claim at issue in this case, the scope of this 

request should be limited to responsive documents concerning the “color renewal” claim. To the 

extent RB believes that it is prevented from producing responsive documents because it owes a 

confidentiality obligation to NAD or another third party, RB must seek permission from such 

other party or parties to produce responsive documents subject to the operative stipulated

protective order in this case (Dkt. No. 35), if necessary. RB must seek permission to produce 

responsive documents and must advise Mr. Prescott’s counsel of the status of its request for 

permission by November 24, 2020. The Court expects that any confidentiality concerns RB has 

with respect to its own information submitted to NAD can be adequately addressed by invoking 

the provisions of the protective order. Any claim of privilege or work product must be invoked 

consistent with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A).

5. ESI protocol: The Court strongly encourages the parties to confer about the 

collection and production of ESI and to memorialize their agreement in the form of a written 

stipulation. RB shall review Mr. Prescott’s current proposal for an ESI protocol and advise him of 

any objections or proposed modifications within the next 14 days. The parties must file a status 

report with the Court on the status of their discussions about procedures for collection and 

production of ESI, or a stipulation memorializing their agreement about such procedures, by 

November 24, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:20-cv-02101-BLF Document 61 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 2