Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02481/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02481-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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 

ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL 

INC., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ERIC SHANE AINSWORTH, et al., 

Defendants.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. 

 Case No.: 14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER [ECF No. 39]; 

AND 

(2) GRANTING MOTION TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

[ECF No. 43] 

 Pending before the Court is non-party Roth Staffing Companies, L.P.’s (“Roth”) 

motion for protective order filed on May 5, 2015. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff/CounterDefendant Robert Half International, Inc. (“RHI”) filed an opposition to Roth’s motion on 

May 19, 2015, and Roth filed a reply to RHI’s opposition on May 22, 2015. (ECF Nos. 

46, 47.) 

 On June 2, 2015, the Court conducted a hearing on Roth’s motion. Appearing before 

the Court were: Clayton Hix, Esq., counsel for Roth and Defendants/Counterclaimants Eric 

Shane Ainsworth, Lisa Lynn Aldava, Serena Mai Greenwood, Ruben D. Hernandez, Jr., 

Deana H. Schweitzer, and Catherine S. Sherman (collectively, “Defendants”); and Roland 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 27
2 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

Juarez, Esq., and Mariana Aguilar, Esq., counsel for RHI. The Court deferred ruling on 

Roth’s motion for protective order to permit counsel to further meet and confer to attempt 

to resolve the issues raised in Roth’s motion concerning RHI’s subpoena to Roth. (See 

ECF No. 52.) Pursuant to the Court’s order, on June 23, 2015 Roth and RHI filed a Joint 

Status Report outlining those aspects of the subpoena to which an agreement has been 

reached, and those aspects that remain in dispute. (ECF Nos. 58, 59.)1

 Having thoroughly considered the aforementioned documents, and for the reasons 

set forth below, see Part III(A), Roth’s motion for protective order is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part. 

 In addition, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.2, the Honorable William Q. Hayes 

referred RHI’s motion to amend the scheduling order (ECF No. 43) to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge. (See ECF No. 61 at 7:6-18.) For the reasons set forth below, see Part 

III(B), RHI’s motion to amend the scheduling order is GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

 RHI, a professional staffing services firm specializing in recruiting and placing 

temporary and permanent employees with clients or customers of RHI, brings this lawsuit 

against six of its former employees who are now employed by Roth, one of RHI’s 

competitors. Although Roth is not a named defendant in this case, RHI alleges in the First 

Amended Complaint that Roth has, over the course of several years, threatened to poach 

RHI’s employees and “created a culture where its employees disregard laws and 

contractual obligations and the rules of fair competition all in an effort to damage RHI. 

                                                                

1 Roth and RHI’s Joint Status Report redacts references to documents and deposition 

testimony designated as confidential under the Court’s January 29, 2015 Protective Order. 

(ECF No. 21.) In conjunction with the Joint Status Report, RHI filed an ex parte

application to file under seal an unredacted copy of the Joint Status Report and supportive 

documents. (ECF No. 56.) Good cause appearing, RHI’s ex parte application is 

GRANTED. The following items shall be filed under seal: (1) the unredacted copy of the 

Joint Status Report; and (2) Exhibits Q and S to the Supplemental Declaration of Mariana 

Aguilar. 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 27
3 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

Roth has lured dozens of RHI employees, the number increasing dramatically in the last 

year, to Roth’s Southern California offices.” (ECF No. 66 at ¶ 2.) As against RHI’s six 

former employees named as Defendants in this case, RHI alleges they have “engag[ed] in 

unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful competition from the moment they decided to leave RHI. 

They have purposefully deceived RHI clients, candidates, and employees in order to enrich 

themselves and Roth, and to damage RHI. The Defendants have done so in ways that 

breached fiduciary duties, implied covenants, express contractual terms, and the law. 

These improper competitive tactics have enabled Roth’s companies to compete for clients 

and customers at levels that would otherwise be unattainable without making the same 

amount of significant expenditures of time and resources made by RHI.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) 

 On April 7, 2015, RHI issued a subpoena to Roth, a non-party, commanding Roth to 

appear with certain documents at a May 6, 2015 deposition. The subpoena contained 31 

categories of deposition topics and 159 requests for documents. RHI contends it 

intentionally set the deposition for May 6, 2015 to ensure it would have time following the 

deposition to assess whether to move to amend the Complaint by the May 13, 2015 

deadline to seek leave to amend, as set forth in the Court’s February 11, 2015 Scheduling 

Order. (ECF No. 25.) 

 On April 15, 2015, counsel for Roth (and the Defendants/Counter-Claimants) sent 

RHI’s counsel a letter requesting to meet and confer regarding certain categories and 

requests in the subpoena. Counsel for RHI and Roth met in person on April 17, 2015. Roth 

maintains that RHI’s counsel agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoena but that RHI 

failed to do so prior to Roth’s filing of its motion for protective order. RHI contends Roth 

attempted to place the burden on RHI to suggest revisions to the subpoena and to address 

Roth’s objections despite the general nature of those objections. 

 On April 20, 2015, Roth served formal objections to the subpoena, many of which 

were not addressed in the April 15 letter or the April 17 meet and confer. RHI claims these 

objections caused confusion because it “was not certain which objections it was supposed 

to address—the objections in the prior letter to a portion of the subpoena or each and every 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 27
4 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

one of the objections served on April 20th.” (ECF No. 46 at 8:15-18.) 

 On May 1, 2015, Roth’s counsel advised RHI’s counsel that Roth would not be 

appearing at the deposition scheduled for May 6. Roth proceeded to file the instant motion 

for protective order on May 4, 2015, despite some discussion between counsel about 

coordinating a joint briefing schedule. 

 Roth argues in its motion for protective order that RHI’s subpoena, when viewed in 

its entirety, is grossly overbroad and unduly burdensome, particularly because Roth is a 

non-party entitled to extra protection from the Court. Roth also contends the subpoena is 

improper because RHI is seeking information unrelated to this lawsuit for an 

“anticompetitive purpose,” namely, to obtain confidential and proprietary documents from 

a key competitor in the marketplace, i.e., Roth. According to Roth, such information 

includes all of Roth’s documents related to RHI, the Defendants and other former RHI 

employees, and Roth’s business practices, clients, and candidates.2 Roth also argues that 

the subpoena improperly requests (1) irrelevant information regarding the solicitation of 

Roth’s non-party employees and Roth’s general business practices and operations; (2) all 

documents regarding Defendants’ employment with Roth; (3) all documents regarding 

Roth’s clients and employee candidates; and (4) information about all revenue generated 

by Defendants for Roth. Roth concedes that it has some discoverable information in its 

possession, but Roth maintains that the scope of the subpoena is so burdensome that the 

entire subpoena should be quashed and RHI should be required to issue a new, narrowlydrawn subpoena. Roth contends it cannot begin to comply with the subpoena until it knows 

whether it will be withdrawn, quashed, or limited. 

 RHI contends Roth has failed to comply with a lawfully served subpoena, failed to 

propose any solutions to RHI’s counsel to address Roth’s objections, and failed to satisfy 

                                                                

2

 Roth also argued in its motion that defined terms in the subpoena included attorneys 

and, thus, implicated the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. However, 

after further meet and confer efforts following the June 2, 2015 hearing, Roth and RHI 

have reached an agreement to resolve this issue. (See ECF No. 58-1 at 2.) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 27
5 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

its burden of showing that the subpoena should be quashed in its entirety. RHI further 

contends that the subpoena seeks relevant discovery, including documents and testimony 

concerning: (1) the solicitation of RHI’s clients and candidates; (2) the recruitment and 

solicitation of RHI’s employees, including Defendants; (3) information regarding 

Defendants’ employment at Roth; (4) RHI’s confidential information; (5) Roth’s business 

practices, policies, and procedures pertinent to the claims in this case; and (6) damages. 

RHI contends it expressed during the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference “that it would 

be looking to investigate Roth with the possibility of adding the company as a defendant.” 

(ECF No. 46 at 6:10-11.) RHI further contends discovery has implicated Roth as a source 

for documents responsive to RHI’s discovery requests to Defendants, e.g., Defendants 

directed RHI to seek certain documents from Roth. RHI responds to Roth’s burden 

objection on grounds that Roth provides no evidence to support the objection. RHI also 

argues that the fact it competes with Roth in the marketplace does not immunize Roth from 

the discovery process. In sum, RHI contends that “Roth’s participation in or ratification 

of . . . Defendants’ acts has yet to be fully discovered and is a proper source of discovery 

in this case, regardless of whether Roth turns out to be a witness or another defendant.” 

(Id. at 7:15-18.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . . For 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. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). 

 Rule 26 authorizes the Court, upon a showing of good cause, to issue an order to 

“any person from whom discovery is sought . . . to protect [that] person from annoyance, 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 5 of 27
6 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). The 

Court’s order may, among other things, forbid the discovery; “forbid[] inquiry into certain 

matters, or limit[] the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters”; or “require[] 

that a trade secret, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information 

not be revealed, or be revealed only in a specified way.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)(A), (D), 

(G). 

 “A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take 

reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the 

subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty 

and impose an appropriate sanction--which may include lost earnings and reasonable 

attorney’s fees--on a party or attorney who fails to comply.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(1). “On 

timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . fails to allow a 

reasonable time to comply [or] . . . subjects a person to undue burden.” FED. R. CIV. P. 

45(c)(3)(A)(i), (iv). In addition, the Court may quash or modify a subpoena that requires 

“disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial 

information.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(i). 

 “On a motion to quash a subpoena, the moving party has the burden of persuasion 

under Rule 45(c)(3), but the party issuing the subpoena must demonstrate that the discovery 

sought is relevant.” Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 12-mc-80237 CRB (NC), 2013 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 119622, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) (citing EON Corp. IP Holdings, 

LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 12-cv-080082-LHK (PSG), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76467, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2012)). “[I]f the sought-after documents are not relevant nor 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then any burden whatsoever

imposed . . . would be by definition ‘undue.’” Compaq Computer Corp. v. Packard Bell 

Elecs., Inc., 163 F.R.D. 329, 335-36 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

 “[T]he word ‘non-party’ serves as a constant reminder of the reasons for the 

limitations that characterize ‘third-party’ discovery.” Dart Indus. Co. v. Westwood Chem. 

Co., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit “does not 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 6 of 27
7 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

favor unnecessarily burdening nonparties with discovery requests,” and, as a result, “[n]onparties deserve extra protection from the courts.” Kim v. Nuvasive, Inc., No. 11cv1370-

DMS (NLS), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96878, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (citing High 

Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 161 F.R.D. 86, 88 (N.D. Cal. 

1995)); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) (court order compelling compliance with 

subpoena following objections by non-party “must protect a person who is neither a party 

nor a party’s officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.”). 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Roth’s Motion for Protective Order 

 As an initial matter, the Court considers Roth’s request that the Court quash the 

subpoena in its entirety and force RHI to issue a new, narrowed subpoena. The Court 

agrees with Roth that the subpoena, as issued, is overbroad and seeks information beyond 

the scope of discovery permissible under Rule 26. Indeed, the subpoena seeks, in large 

part, discovery that goes beyond the claims or defenses of the parties, but to potential

claims by RHI against Roth. The Court does not find good cause under Rule 26(b)(1) to 

expand the scope of discovery to any matter relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit. 

Rather, discovery should be limited to the claims and defenses of the parties. Roth, as a 

non-party, is deserving of special protection from the Court, and the Court does not 

condone RHI’s admitted attempt to utilize the subpoena process as a means to gather 

evidence against Roth in order to determine whether to name Roth as a defendant. See 

Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., Inc., 894 F.2d 1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The 

discovery rules are designed to assist a party to prove a claim it reasonably believes to be 

viable without discovery, not to find out if it has any basis for a claim.” (citations omitted)). 

As the Court advised RHI’s counsel during the June 2 hearing, the information sought in 

the subpoena should be focused on RHI’s claims against the named Defendants, and not 

on potential claims against Roth. (See ECF No. 54 at 19:19-20:1 (“The Court does find 

that because Roth is a nonparty that the scope of discovery does need to be limited to the 

applicable claims and defenses in this action . . . [and] the subpoena needs to be 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 7 of 27
8 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

dramatically narrowed to a manageable level.”).) 

 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court declines to quash the subpoena in its 

entirety. First, Roth admits it has discoverable information. Second, counsel have worked 

diligently to significantly narrow the scope of the subpoena by agreeing to numerous 

limitations and exclusions. (See ECF No. 58-1.) The Court’s goal of promoting efficiency 

in the discovery process is fostered by addressing the remaining disputes rather than 

requiring RHI to prepare a new subpoena, which would then likely be met with objections 

from Roth, another discovery motion, and delayed completion of discovery. 

 Next, the Court considers the dispute regarding the definitions of “CLIENTS” and 

“CANDIDATES.”3

 During the meet and confer process, RHI proposed that these terms 

be limited to “the clients and candidates Defendants worked with, had contact with, or had 

confidential information about (to the extent they remember) as part of their job duties at 

RHI.” (ECF No. 58 at 3:18-21.) Roth agrees this limitation satisfies its concerns. 

However, RHI is now backtracking from its own proposal, arguing that by narrowing these 

terms in such a manner, “RHI will not be able to determine whether Defendants are telling 

the truth and/or have accurate recollections when they identified the former RHI clients 

and candidates they are now working with at Roth. RHI would be forced to rely solely on 

Defendants’ memories for the information regarding which RHI clients and candidates they 

now work with at Roth—something that has already been an issue in the litigation.” (Id.

at 3:23-4:1.) Rather than move forward with its own proposal, RHI instead proposes that 

Roth create a list of the names and candidates each of the Defendants have worked with 

and/or had contact with since joining Roth, and RHI would create a similar list of those 

                                                                

3

 The subpoena defines “CLIENT” as “any PERSON that any of the DEFENDANTS 

worked with, were privy to CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION about, or for whom any 

of the RHI offices performs or has performed services in the course of its business.” (ECF 

No. 46-2 at 7.) The subpoena defines “CANDIDATE” as “any PERSON who was or is 

registered for placement by an RHI office whether on a temporary, contract or direct hire 

basis.” (Id.) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 8 of 27
9 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

clients and candidates Defendants worked with and/or had contact with while employed at 

RHI. RHI further proposes these lists be designated for attorneys’ eyes only pursuant to 

the Protective Order, and it contends this new proposal will permit RHI to determine which 

of its clients and candidates are now working with Defendants at Roth. Roth opposes RHI’s 

new proposal: “Roth does not agree to produce a complete client list in exchange for a 

limitation of these definitions. If the Court is inclined to keep these broad definitions intact, 

Roth would prefer to attempt to comply with requests that include them in good faith.” (Id.

at 2:23-26.) 

 The Court declines to adopt RHI’s newest proposal requiring RHI and Roth to 

exchange client lists between counsel. First, RHI’s proposal is based on an unreasonable 

concern that Defendants cannot be trusted to comply with their discovery obligations. The 

only evidence suggesting cause for concern is a single instance where one Defendant did 

not disclose in her interrogatory response a candidate with whom she worked while at Roth 

but later identified that candidate during her deposition. However, the Court is not 

convinced this was anything more than an oversight, as this Defendant readily disclosed 

the candidate’s name during the deposition. It does not appear the interrogatory response 

was intended to deceive or provide an incomplete response. And it may not have even 

been incomplete. The interrogatory response was made on March 23, 2015, while the 

deposition did not occur until June 3, 2015. Who’s to say that this Defendant’s work with 

this particular candidate did not commence after service of the interrogatory response? The 

record before the Court does not indicate that RHI’s counsel inquired into this potential 

inconsistency during the June 3 deposition, and the Court is not willing to assign an 

improper motive based on this ambiguous evidence. Thus, RHI’s entire proposal is based 

on an unfounded concern that Defendants cannot be trusted. But the federal discovery 

rules are based on the understanding that a party will dutifully comply with discovery 

obligations, and there is always the potential that a party might not disclose all relevant, 

discoverable information. While there are procedures in place to promote compliance (e.g., 

a party’s duty to supplement disclosures and discovery responses, see FED.R.CIV. P. 26(e); 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 9 of 27
10 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

the Court’s authority to impose sanctions for discovery abuses, see FED. R. CIV. P. 37), the 

Court is not willing to impose an additional burden on Roth, a non-party, as a means to 

ensure the thoroughness of Defendants’ discovery responses. Moreover, RHI’s client list 

proposal would be subject to the same issue of trust. That is, can RHI be confident that 

Roth’s client list is complete? RHI would be in the same position regardless of which 

proposal is adopted. Thus, the Court finds that RHI’s subpoena should be modified as 

suggested by RHI’s initial proposal, namely, limiting the definitions of clients and 

candidates to “the clients and candidates Defendants worked with, had contact with, or had 

confidential information about (to the extent they remember) as part of their job duties at 

RHI.” 

 The Court next considers the specific disputed deposition categories and document 

requests: 

 1. Category Nos. 1-6

 Category Nos. 1-6 seek information regarding the solicitation, recruitment, and/or 

hiring of Defendants by Roth, including information Roth had regarding Defendants’ 

employment agreement with RHI. (ECF No. 39-2 at 8-9.) Following meet and confer 

efforts, RHI proposed modifying the categories to focus on the solicitation, recruitment, 

and/or hiring of Defendants to Roth.4

 (ECF No. 58-2 at 2.) RHI contends this modification 

will “focus on the Defendants and their solicitation to Roth, which could include 

solicitation by some or all of the Defendants themselves.” (ECF No. 58 at 5:8-9.) 

 Roth contends these requests, even as modified, are anticompetitive and not relevant 

to the parties’ claims or defenses. Roth maintains the issues in this case are whether 

Defendants (1) brought RHI confidential information to Roth and used it to unlawfully 

solicit RHI employer and applicant customers; and/or (2) unlawfully solicited RHI 

                                                                

4

 Throughout this Order the Court will analyze RHI’s categories and requests utilizing 

RHI’s proposed limitations or modifications rather than the original, substantially 

overbroad language in the subpoena. 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 10 of 27
11 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

employees (in the specific instances identified in the complaint). Roth contends Category 

Nos. 1-6, as well as Category Nos. 7-24, “can be boiled down to three requests for 

testimony on those issues,” and that “Roth’s recruiting practices and strategies are not at 

issue.” Specifically, Roth proposes the following categories in lieu of Category Nos. 1-24: 

(1) Defendants’ possession of RHI’s confidential information; (2) Defendants’ use of 

RHI’s confidential information to solicit its employer and applicant customers for the 

benefit of Roth; and (3) the specific instances of unlawful recruitment of RHI employees 

identified in the complaint. (ECF No. 58-2 at 2.) 

 The Court agrees with Roth that these three proposed categories are proper matters 

for RHI to inquire into during Roth’s deposition as they are directed towards RHI’s claims 

against Defendants. However, Roth’s proposal is too narrow. RHI should also be 

permitted to inquire into communications between each Defendant and Roth during the 

solicitation, recruitment, and/or hiring process. The Court agrees with RHI that it is entitled 

“to know what Defendants told Roth during the hiring process about RHI’s confidential 

information and employees—something Roth’s proposal would not necessarily capture.” 

(ECF No. 58 at 6:5-7.) However, Roth’s internal responses to this information are not 

relevant to the claims against Defendants, and RHI is therefore not entitled to inquire into 

this topic.

 2. Category Nos. 9-14 

 Category Nos. 9-14 seek information concerning the terms and conditions of 

Defendants’ employment with Roth, including their respective compensation packages, job 

duties, offer letters, and employment agreements. (ECF No. 39-2 at 9-10.) During the 

meet and confer process, the parties relied on the same arguments they made in connection 

with Category Nos. 1-6. In addition, RHI now argues that the terms and conditions of 

Defendants’ employment with Roth is relevant for two reasons: 

First, RHI believes that Roth was able to make offers to certain Defendants 

and provide them with certain terms because it received RHI’s confidential 

business information from one of the Defendants. For example, RHI contends 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 11 of 27
12 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

that Aldava provided Roth RHI’s confidential information to allow it to 

fashion offers to Sherman and Greenwood. Moreover, RHI believes that 

Ainsworth may have engaged in similar activity in an effort to get Hernandez 

to join him at Roth. Second, RHI needs to know if any of the job offers were 

contingent or otherwise based on one of the Defendants providing Roth with 

RHI’s confidential information. RHI needs to know how Roth formulated and 

communicated the terms of each Defendant’s position to Defendants and what 

if, anything, any of the Defendants said in reply. 

(ECF No. 58 at 6:14-24.) 

 The Court believes RHI has adequately demonstrated the relevance of the requested 

information. RHI shall not be precluded from inquiring into the terms and conditions of 

Defendants’ employment with Roth. 

 3. Category Nos. 18 and 22 

Category No. 18 seeks Roth’s business practices or business strategies related to 

recruiting Defendants from RHI, although RHI agreed to limit the category to the recruiting 

of Defendants. (ECF No. 58-2 at 4.) Category No. 22 seeks information about any 

strategy, plan, or intention by Roth to focus on recruiting RHI employees, although RHI 

agreed to limit the category to the recruiting of Defendants. (Id. at 6.) 

 During the meet and confer process, the parties relied on the same arguments they 

made in connection with Category Nos. 1-6. In addition, RHI now argues that Category 

Nos. 18 and 22, as modified, are relevant because although “Roth is not a party, each of 

the six Defendants were recruited and left RHI’s employ within a short period of time. RHI 

does not believes this is a coincidence whether at the sole hands of Defendants’ recruitment 

or with Roth’s involvement. Moreover, RHI believes that the Defendants’ recruitment may 

have had to do with their knowledge of and access to RHI’s confidential information.” 

(ECF No. 58 at 7:20-24.) RHI further contends that in addition to the specific instances of 

unlawful recruitment alleged in the complaint, it “should also be permitted to ask a Roth 

deponent questions regarding how the other Defendants came to Roth. Documents will 

not tell RHI if Roth recruited Defendants because they orally represented that they had a 

book of business, access to specific clients or candidates, or would be able to convince 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 12 of 27
13 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

other RHI employees to make the move. Such information is important to RHI’s case.” 

(Id. at 8:1-5.) 

 The Court finds that Roth’s business strategies, plans, and intentions to recruit 

Defendants, assuming such information exists, are not relevant to the claims and defenses 

in this case. RHI is already entitled to inquire into what Defendants may have told Roth 

during the hiring process about RHI’s confidential information and employees. See supra

Part III(A)(1). Thus, to the extent Category No. 18 seeks information about Roth’s hiring 

of Defendants, that information is already covered by a separate category. Category No. 

18 is duplicative in this respect. Moreover, Roth’s business plan, strategies, and intentions 

are not relevant to the claims against Defendants. Based on the current stage of the 

pleadings, Roth’s purposes in hiring Defendants are irrelevant. 

 Accordingly, except for the area of Roth’s actual hiring process regarding 

Defendants and the terms and conditions of Defendants’ employment with Roth, the Court 

finds that RHI is not entitled to question Roth’s representative concerning the topics 

identified in Category Nos. 18 and 22. 

4. Category No. 19 and Request No. 154 

Category No. 19 seeks Roth’s business practices or business strategies related to 

hiring employees who have signed agreements with their prior employers that contain posttermination obligations, although RHI has agreed to limit the category to Defendants, i.e., 

whether Roth had in place practices or strategies to ensure that Defendants did not violate 

their agreements with RHI. (ECF No. 58-2 at 5.) Request No. 154 seeks all Roth policies, 

procedures, practices, or requirements referring or relating to the hiring of employees 

bound by a non-competition, non-solicitation, or non-disclosure agreement, although RHI 

has agreed to limit the request to Defendants. (Id. at 20.) 

 RHI contends that “[t]estimony and related documents regarding how Roth dealt 

with the fact that each of the Defendants had an employment agreement with RHI that 

contains post-termination obligations goes to the heart of RHI’s case. The question is what 

did Roth do if anything to inform the Defendants that they were bound by agreements with 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 13 of 27
14 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

RHI and, more importantly, how the Defendants reacted to those instructions.” (ECF No. 

58 at 8:14-19.) RHI contends that at least one of the Defendants represented to Roth that 

she was not subject to any post-termination agreement with a previous employer, and that 

a Roth employee told another Defendant that she might not have to provide Roth with her 

RHI employment agreement given that Roth already knew what RHI’s agreement looks 

like. RHI further contends it “does not know what, if anything Roth did after those forms 

were completed, whether the other Defendants ever executed similar forms, or whether any 

additional procedures were required. RHI should be able to question a Roth deponent about 

its processes for checking on and reviewing Defendants’ agreements with their former 

employees. RHI needs to know if the Defendants were told by Roth to abide by their 

agreement, what exactly they were told, and whether Defendants ignored those 

instructions.” (Id. at 8:25-9:5.) 

 The Court agrees with RHI that testimony and documents regarding what Roth told 

Defendants about their agreements with RHI is relevant to RHI’s claims against 

Defendants for breach of contract and unfair competition. RHI is permitted to obtain 

testimony and documents from Roth regarding Defendants’ employment agreements with 

RHI including any representations by Defendants to Roth about those agreements (or lack 

thereof), whether Roth had discussions with or provided instruction to Defendants 

concerning those agreements, and Defendants’ responses to such instruction. However, 

Category No. 19 and Request No. 154, even as modified by RHI, go beyond this relevant 

and discoverable information. RHI is also seeking to know whether Roth’s interactions 

with Defendants occurred as part of Roth’s general business practices or strategy. This is 

not relevant to the claims or defenses in the lawsuit. RHI also seeks to discover how Roth 

responded to representations made by Defendants. Unless Roth’s response consisted of 

some further discussion or instruction to Defendants, Roth’s internal response to the 

information provided by Defendants is not discoverable. 

/ / / 

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 14 of 27
15 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

 5. Category No. 23 

 Category No. 23 seeks to discover any strategy, plan, or intention by Roth to focus 

on recruiting RHI’s employees, although RHI has agreed to modify the category to include 

any strategy, plan, or intention by Defendants to obtain or provide RHI’s confidential 

information or any other RHI documents to Roth or to use such information for Roth’s 

benefits. (ECF No. 58-2 at 6-7.) 

During the meet and confer process, the parties relied on the same arguments they 

made in connection with Category Nos. 1-6. In addition, Roth argued that it is improper 

and unnecessary to ask Roth what Defendants were thinking, and that RHI should ask 

Defendants rather than Roth. RHI responded that the category asks for more than what 

Defendants were thinking and, even if it did not, “whether Defendants told their employer 

what they were thinking on this category is relevant information, which RHI should be 

allowed to test Defendants’ deposition testimony against.” (Id. at 7.) 

 Obviously, to the extent Defendants did not disclose to Roth any strategy, plan, or 

intention to provide RHI’s confidential information or other RHI documents to Roth or to 

use such information for Roth’s benefit, Roth would not be required to disclose information 

it never obtained. However, this category, as modified by RHI, is relevant to Defendants’ 

actions and RHI’s claims against them. To the extent Defendants expressed their strategy, 

plan, or intention to Roth, Roth is required to disclose this information during the 

deposition. In addition, if Roth became aware of Defendants’ strategy, plan, or intentions 

through means other than by disclosure from Defendants, Roth is required to disclose this 

information.

 6. Category No. 24, Request Nos. 156, and Proposed New Category No. 160 

 Category No. 24 and Request No. 156 seek testimony and documents concerning 

Roth’s policies, procedures, practices, or requirements for documenting its contacts with 

its existing and prospective clients and candidates, although RHI has agreed to limit the 

category and request to Roth’s policies, procedures, practices, or requirements for 

documenting its contacts with Roth’s existing and prospective clients and candidates in the 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 15 of 27
16 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

divisions or departments where Defendants work(ed). (Id. at 8, 21.) 

 RHI contends this information is “aimed at understanding how to test whether a 

Defendant or other deponent is being truthful when and if they state that a client or 

candidate was previously, i.e. before the applicable Defendant became employed, a client 

or candidate at Roth.” (Id. at 8, 21-22.) RHI also contends the information is relevant 

because one of Defendants’ defenses to RHI’s claim that Defendants unlawfully used 

RHI’s confidential information to solicit RHI’s clients and candidates is that the solicitation 

was not wrongful because the client or candidate had previously worked for Roth. (ECF 

No. 58 at 10:20-25.) RHI further contends that “whether or not the clients and candidates 

at issue were Roth clients and candidates prior to Defendants’ arrival at the company is 

clearly related to the case regardless of whether or not it constitutes information regarding 

Roth’s business practices.” (Id. at 11:3-6) 

 In an effort to calm Roth’s concerns, RHI has proposed a new document request, 

Request No. 160, which seeks documents sufficient to show Roth’s prior business history 

with any client or candidate that Defendants are working with, worked with, or have made 

contact with at Roth and that Roth contends it did business with prior to the date it hired 

the applicable Defendants. (ECF No. 58-2 at 23.) Roth initially objected to this proposed 

request on grounds that it was not included in the original subpoena, but it later agreed to 

respond to Request No. 160 if it is limited to the clients and candidates at issue in the case. 

(Id.) RHI agreed on the condition that an agreement regarding the verification of clients 

and candidates could be reached. (Id.) 

 Roth’s policies, procedures, practices, or requirements for documenting its contacts 

with its existing and prospective clients and candidates, even if limited to the divisions or 

departments where Defendants work, is unduly intrusive of a non-party competitor. The 

Court elects to substitute proposed Request No. 160 in place of Category No. 24 and 

Request No. 156. Moreover, the Court has already resolved the dispute regarding the 

verification of clients and candidates. See supra Part III(A). Roth shall respond to Request 

No. 160. 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 16 of 27
17 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

 7. Category No. 29 

 Category No. 29 seeks testimony concerning the procedures and processes 

undertaken by Roth to confirm that it and none of its current and former employees are in 

possession of RHI’s confidential information or any other RHI documents, although RHI 

has agreed to limit the category to the procedures and processes undertaken by Roth to 

confirm that it and none of its current and former employees are, as a result of Defendants’ 

conduct, in possession of RHI’s confidential information or any other RHI documents. 

(ECF No. 58-2 at 8-9.) 

 RHI contends it is entitled to investigate whether any of its confidential information 

or other documents were provided by Defendants to Roth and what Roth has done to ensure 

it is not in possession of such information. (Id. at 9.) RHI further contends it “needs to 

know that Roth has confirmed that the confidential information Defendants took from it is 

not on Roth’s system.” (ECF No. 58 at 12:9-10.) 

 The Court finds Category No. 29 to be unduly intrusive. RHI has not shown why it 

should be permitted to inquire into Roth’s procedures and processes. Although knowledge 

of which RHI documents were provided by Defendants to Roth is plainly relevant, this 

inquiry can be answered by requiring Roth to produce all RHI documents it obtained from 

Defendants. This modification avoids imposing on Roth, a non-party, the burden of 

explaining to a competitor its internal procedures and processes, when those procedures 

and processes are not relevant to the claims against Defendants. The Court disagrees with 

RHI as to the relevancy of “what Roth has done to ensure it is not in possession of any 

[RHI] information.” (ECF No. 58-2 at 9.) 

 Accordingly, RHI shall not be permitted to question a Roth deponent about the 

information requested in Category No. 29. Instead, Roth shall produce all RHI documents 

(confidential or otherwise) in its possession, custody, or control that it obtained from 

Defendants. In addition, to the extent Roth obtained RHI documents from Defendants but 

those documents are no longer in Roth’s possession, custody, or control, RHI will be 

permitted to ask a Roth deponent to identify such documents. Inquiry into what Roth did 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 17 of 27
18 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

with the documents to make them no longer in Roth’s possession, custody, or control is not 

permitted.

 8. Category No. 31 and Request No. 159 

 Category No. 31 and Request No. 159 seek testimony and documents concerning the 

revenue generated for Roth by Defendants, although RHI has agreed to limit them to 

revenue generated for Roth by Defendants Greenwood, Hernandez, and Sherman, and 

revenue generated for Roth by Defendants Ainsworth, Aldava, and Schweitzer for any 

clients or candidates. (Id. at 10, 22.) 

 Roth agrees to provide revenue information related to the clients and candidates at 

issue in this case. Thus, there is no dispute with respect to revenue information generated 

by Defendants Ainsworth, Aldava, and Schweitzer. However, Roth objects to providing 

all revenue information generated by Defendants Greenwood, Hernandez, and Sherman. 

As to these three Defendants, RHI claims full revenue information is needed “because RHI 

is claiming damages based on the value of the employees it lost as the result of certain 

Defendants’ conduct.” (Id. at 10.) Roth contends revenue that is not tied to the clients and 

candidates at issue is too speculative to be recoverable under RHI’s theory that recoverable 

damages include the value of Defendants’ employment. 

 The Court finds that this discovery should, for all six Defendants, be limited to the 

clients and candidates at issue. Roth is a non-party competitor of RHI and the Court is 

concerned that requiring it to produce all revenue generated by Defendants Greenwood, 

Hernandez, and Sherman improperly invades into Roth’s confidential business 

information. While the Court recognizes the relevance of the information, the Court also 

concludes that it is based on speculation that revenue generated by certain Defendants 

while at Roth would have been obtained at RHI had those Defendants remained at RHI. 

Numerous factors could influence the amount of revenue generated, including Defendants’ 

use of Roth’s proprietary business information or trade secrets that would have been 

unavailable to them had they never joined Roth. Given the speculative nature of this 

information, the Court finds that protection from disclosure is appropriate. See FED. R.

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 18 of 27
19 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

CIV. P. 26(c)(1)(G) (authorizing protective order “requiring that a trade secret or other 

confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be 

revealed only in a specified way.”). 

 Accordingly, the Court modifies Category No. 31 and Request No. 159 to be 

limited to revenue generated by Defendants for any clients and candidates at issue in this 

case.

 9. Proposed New Category Nos. 32 and Request Nos. 74-79 

 Request Nos. 74-79 seek all documents referring or relating to Defendants’ 

employment with Roth, including, but not limited to, each Defendants’ resume, 

applications for employment, personnel file, job offer, performance expectations, job 

description, job duties, and documents relating to Defendants’ compensation bonuses and 

benefits. (ECF No. 58-2 at 16.) Roth initially objected to the use of the phrase “all 

documents,” so RHI proposed limiting the requests to each Defendants’ resume, 

application for employment, personnel file, job offer, performance expectations, job 

description, job duties, and documents sufficient to reflect Defendants’ compensation 

bonuses and benefits. (Id.) 

 Roth agrees to produce these documents with one exception. Roth argues the phrase 

“benefits” is ambiguous and irrelevant and that Defendants’ and Roth’s privacy rights 

outweigh any relevance. (Id. at 16-17.) RHI contends (1) Defendants’ benefits “have the 

same relevance as any other incentive that may have been used to entice the Defendants to 

join Roth”; (2) Roth waived its ambiguity and privacy objections by not asserting them in 

its formal objections; and (3) any privacy concern is cured by the Protective Order issued 

in this case. (ECF No. 58 at 15:11-24.) The Court agrees with RHI. The term “benefits” 

is not ambiguous in the context of the specific types of documents requested by RHI, and 

any privacy concerns can be protected by designating the benefits documents pursuant to 

the Protective Order. Moreover, Roth waived these objections. Finally, Defendants’ 

benefits package is relevant in that it is part of the compensation package offered to each 

Defendant, and such information is reasonably calculated to have had at least some impact 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 19 of 27
20 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

on Defendants’ decision to leave RHI. 

 Accordingly, Roth shall produce all documents responsive to Category Nos. 74-79, 

as limited by RHI to include each Defendants’ each Defendants’ resume, application for 

employment, personnel file, job offer, performance expectations, job description, job 

duties, and documents sufficient to reflect Defendants’ compensation bonuses and 

benefits.5

 

 10. Proposed New Category Nos. 33 and 34, and Request Nos. 80-100 and 

101-124 

 Request Nos. 80-100 seek all documents regarding certain RHI clients that RHI has, 

through investigation and discovery in this case, determined that Defendants interacted 

with since becoming employed by Roth, including, but not limited to communications with 

the clients’ employees, files, contracts, pitches, marketing materials, pricing information, 

and term sheets. (ECF No. 39-2 at 27-31.) Roth initially objected to the use of the phrase 

“all documents,” so RHI proposed limiting the requests to the following categories of 

documents: communications with the clients’ employees, files, contracts, pitches, 

marketing materials, pricing information (bill rates), hourly rates, term sheets, placement 

records, placement requests, placement fees, bills, invoices, commission information, and 

                                                                

5

 RHI proposed a new category of deposition testimony, Category No. 32, as a 

compromise to Roth’s objection to the phrase “all documents.” (See ECF No. 58-2 at 11.) 

RHI contends Roth has refused to provide the specific names of documents that RHI is 

seeking in connection with Request Nos. 74-79, and that the proposed deposition category 

will allow RHI to identify those documents that may not be included in the specific list of 

documents identified by Roth. However, RHI provides no authority for the position that a 

non-party witness (i.e., Roth) should be required to identify for a party (i.e., RHI) what 

types of documents that party should include in its subpoena to the non-party. In addition, 

RHI does not need to know the exact name of the documents contained in, for example, 

Defendants’ Roth personnel file. Production of the personnel file is sufficient. Roth has 

agreed in good faith to produce the documents that fall within the general categories of 

documents requested by RHI. Finally, the proposed new category is not necessary because 

RHI is already permitted to inquire into the terms and conditions of Defendants’ 

employment with Roth in connection with Category Nos. 9-14. See supra Part III(A)(2). 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 20 of 27
21 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

related documents. (ECF No. 58-2 at 17.) 

 Request Nos. 101-124 seek all documents, including communications, regarding 

RHI candidates that Defendants interacted with since becoming employed by Roth. (ECF 

No. 39-2 at 31-33.) Again, Roth initially objected to the use of the phrase “all documents,” 

so RHI proposed limiting the requests to the following categories of documents regarding 

candidates: communications with the candidates, files, contracts, resumes, qualifications, 

pricing information (bill rates), hourly rates, term sheets, placement records, placement 

requests, placement fees, bills, invoices, commission information, and related documents. 

(ECF No. 58-2 at 18-19.) 

 Roth objected to producing documents responsive to RHI’s modified requests on the 

basis that “[i]n response to Defendants’ document requests, RHI refused to produce these 

same types of records contained in its MicroJ system regarding these same 

clients/candidates. If RHI agrees to produce them, Roth will do the same. Can’t have it 

both ways.” (Id. at 17, 19.) RHI responded by noting that it has not refused to produce 

MicroJ records but that it had made overbreadth objections to Defendants’ requests on 

which counsel could meet and confer, and Defendants had not proposed any limitations 

like RHI has done. Roth responded: “Defendants agree to limit their request for MicroJ 

records in the same way as you have limited the request above. If that is ok with you, then 

we have a deal.” (Id. at 17.) Counsel the argued whether their meet and confer over RHI’s 

subpoena to Roth was an appropriate forum to meet and confer over Defendants’ document 

requests to RHI. 

 As it stands, Roth has made no objection to the relevancy of the documents sought 

in Request Nos. 80-124, as modified by RHI. The Court appreciates that there is a dispute 

over potentially similar documents6

 sought by Defendants from RHI. However, Roth 

                                                                

6

 Without the benefit of reviewing Defendants’ requests to RHI, RHI’s objections to 

those requests, or any briefing on that dispute, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants’ 

requests are the same as RHI’s requests to Roth. This is especially true given that RHI 

appears to have demonstrated differences in the requests. (See ECF No. 58 at 17:22-28.) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 21 of 27
22 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

cannot use that dispute, over which no adequate meet and confer has yet occurred, to refuse 

to produce admittedly relevant documents. Accordingly, Roth shall produce all documents 

responsive to Request Nos. 80-124, as modified by RHI.7

 11. Request No. 12 

 Request No. 12 seeks all documents, including communications, referring or relating 

to any effort by Defendants to solicit, recruit, engage, or hire current or former employees 

of RHI for Roth’s benefit. (ECF No. 39-2 at 18.) 

 Roth contends it should only be required to produce documents concerning 

Defendants Ainsworth and Hernandez’s alleged solicitation of Danielle Healis, and 

Defendants Greenwood and Sherman’s alleged solicitation of Defendant Aldava, because 

these are the only allegations of solicitation in the complaint. (ECF No. 58-2 at 15-16.) 

The Court disagrees. RHI is entitled to investigate whether additional solicitation of other 

RHI employees occurred, even if RHI is not currently aware of such facts. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee notes (2000 amendments) (information relevant to the 

claims and defenses in a case may, in a given action, include “other incidents of the same 

type.”). Accordingly, Roth shall comply with Request No. 12 by producing all documents, 

including communications, referring or relating to any effort by Defendants to solicit, 

recruit, engage, or hire current or former employees of RHI for Roth’s benefit.

 12. Request No. 138 

 Request No. 138 seeks all communications between Roth and any current or former 

RHI employee referring or relating to employment or employment opportunities with Roth, 

although RHI has agreed to limit the request to communications between Roth and any of 

the Defendants. (ECF No. 58-2 at 20.) 

/ / / 

                                                                

7

 RHI’s proposed new categories of deposition testimony, Category Nos. 33-34, are 

inappropriate for the same reasons set forth above in connection with proposed Category 

No. 32. See supra note 5. 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 22 of 27
23 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

 Roth contends this request is duplicative of Request Nos. 1-68

 and, to the extent it is 

not duplicative, it seeks irrelevant documents because Roth’s business practices with 

respect to soliciting Defendants is not at issue. (Id.) 

 As an initial matter, the Court overrules Roth’s objection that this request is 

duplicative. To the extent it overlaps with documents sought by Request Nos. 1-6, Roth 

has already agreed to produce the documents. The Court also finds that RHI’s proposed 

limitation properly narrows the scope of this request to focus only on Roth’s 

communications with Defendants relating to employment or employment opportunities. 

Such communications are plainly relevant to RHI’s claims against Defendants, and all 

responsive documents should be produced. The request does not ask to disclose Roth’s 

business practices with respect to soliciting Defendants. Rather, it seeks communications 

between Roth and Defendants surrounding the principal issue in this lawsuit, i.e., 

Defendants’ decision to begin working at Roth. Although such communications are 

relevant, RHI’s argument that it is entitled to general employment announcements misses 

the fact that such announcements are not communications between Roth and Defendants 

and, thus, are not contemplated by this request. 

 13. Conclusion

 Based on the foregoing, Roth’s motion for protective order is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part. Subject to the foregoing analysis, Roth shall produce all responsive 

documents to RHI no later than September 8, 2015. Counsel for Roth and RHI shall meet 

and confer to schedule a mutually convenient date for Roth’s deposition, which shall be 

conducted on or before September 22, 2015. 

 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Roth is not precluded from designating documents 

or deposition testimony as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the 

                                                                

8

 Request Nos. 1-6, as limited by the agreement of RHI and Roth, seek all documents, 

including communications, referring or relating to the solicitation or recruitment of 

Defendants to join Roth. (See ECF No. 58-1 at 7.) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 23 of 27
24 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

Court’s January 29, 2015 Protective Order. (ECF No. 21.) 

B. RHI’s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order

 RHI requests that the February 22, 2015 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25) be amended 

to extend: (1) the deadline to amend pleadings “within two weeks after [Roth] fully 

complies with the subpoena issued by RHI”; (2) RHI’s expert designation deadline from 

May 15, 2015, to fifteen days from the date this Order is filed; (3) Defendants’ expert 

designation deadline from May 29, 2015 to thirty days from the date this Order is filed; 

and (4) the supplemental expert designation deadline to forty-four days from the date this 

Order is filed. (ECF No. 43-3 at 8:18-9:13.) 

 RHI contends good cause exists for the requested extensions because (1) RHI 

subpoenaed documents and testimony from Roth to occur before the expiration of the May 

15 deadline to move to amend pleadings; (2) RHI has been unable to obtain documents or 

testimony from Roth because Roth failed to appear at the deposition or produce any 

documents9

 in an attempt to “block discovery” related to Defendants and RHI; (3) Roth’s 

refusal to comply with the subpoena would prejudice RHI if RHI is not permitted to file an 

amended complaint should additional discovery warrant amendment; and (4) the current 

Scheduling Order does not permit RHI to identify experts related to new claims in the [First 

Amended Complaint], given that the [First Amended Complaint] will not be deemed filed 

until and unless this Court grants the amendment.”10 (ECF No. 43-3 at 7:23-9:9.) 

/ / / 

                                                                

9

 RHI’s repeated accusations that Roth failed to appear at the deposition are 

disingenuous. Roth objected to the subpoena, both in its entirety and as to individual 

categories and requests. Roth’s objections excuse compliance with the subpoena until a 

court orders otherwise. See FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) (“These acts may be required 

only as directed in the order. . . .”). 

 

10 Judge Hayes granted RHI’s unopposed motion for leave to file a First Amended 

Complaint, which added a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets against Defendants 

Aldava, Greenwood, Hernandez, and Sherman, on July 15, 2015. (See ECF No. 61.) 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 24 of 27
25 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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

 Defendants do not oppose extending the deadline to identify experts specifically 

related to the new causes of action for misappropriation in RHI’s First Amended 

Complaint. However, Defendants oppose RHI’s request to extend the deadlines to move 

to amend pleadings or to identify experts with respect to preexisting claims for relief in the 

original complaint. (ECF No. 50 at 2:3-8.) 

1. Legal Standards 

 Rule 16(b) requires that, “as soon as practicable,” district courts issue a scheduling 

order “limit[ing] the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, 

and file motions.” FED. R. CIV. P 16(b)(2), (3)(A). A scheduling order “may be modified 

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). Although 

“Rule 15(a) liberally allows for amendments to pleadings,” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 

232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000), that policy does not apply after a district court has 

issued “a pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable for amending the pleadings, 

and the deadline [has] expired.” Id. Rather, under those circumstances, parties seeking to 

amend their complaints “must show good cause for not having amended their complaints 

before the time specified in the scheduling order expired.” Id. (citing Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Aliota v. Town of Lisbon, 

651 F.3d 715, 719-20 (7th Cir. 2011) (identifying the majority of circuit courts that “apply 

the heightened good-cause standard of Rule 16(b)(4) before considering whether the 

requirements of Rule 15(a)(2) were satisfied.”). “This standard ‘primarily considers the 

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.’” Id. (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification 

might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the 

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing 

Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 25 of 27
26 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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. Motion for Leave to Amend Deadline11

 As for the deadline to move for leave to amend the pleadings, the Court finds RHI 

has established it has acted diligently to obtain discovery from Roth that might support 

additional claims in a further amended complaint. Indeed, RHI served its subpoena on 

Roth only two months after the Court issued the Scheduling Order, and the date set for 

compliance was set to occur prior to the deadline to move to amend pleadings. 

 Defendants’ arguments that RHI’s request is premature and that RHI has known 

since the outset of this case of potential claims against Roth do not account for the potential 

that a further amended complaint might also include additional claims against Defendants 

based on the discovery obtained from Roth. Moreover, RHI did not, as Defendants 

contend, wait seven months to serve a subpoena on Roth. Discovery was stayed pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) until the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference which 

appears to have occurred in mid-December 2014 prior to their filing of a Joint Rule 26(f) 

Report on December 22, 2014. (ECF No. 11.) It is not unreasonable to expect RHI to 

focus its initial discovery efforts on obtaining documents and deposition testimony from 

Defendants before issuing a subpoena to Defendants’ current employer, Roth. 

 In short, RHI has been diligent in seeking the discovery on which it may rely to 

assert additional claims in an amended complaint. Further, there is no prejudice to 

Defendants. Accordingly, RHI’s motion to amend the Scheduling Order by continuing the 

deadline to move to amend pleadings is GRANTED. The Court will issue a separate 

Amended Scheduling order setting forth the new deadline. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

                                                                

11 The Court reminds RHI that the May 15, 2015 deadline was a deadline to file a 

motion to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or file additional pleadings. (See ECF 

No. 25 at ¶ 2.) RHI’s motion repeatedly characterizes the deadline as one to amend the 

pleadings, but RHI must first obtain leave of court to file a motion to join other parties, 

amend the pleadings, or file additional pleadings. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 26 of 27
27 

14cv2481-WQH (DHB) 

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. Expert Designation Deadlines 

 As to the expert designation deadlines, Defendants contend that RHI only argued an 

extension was needed to identify experts related to new claims in the First Amended 

Complaint, but that RHI failed to identify experts in support of the claims in its original 

complaint and that RHI offers no good cause for its failure or inability to do so. Defendants 

contend “the Court should only extend the parties’ deadline to identify experts with respect 

to RHI’s newly added misappropriation claim in the [First Amended Complaint].” (Id. at 

3:10-14.) RHI fails to respond to this argument in its reply. 

 Notwithstanding RHI’s failure to address this issue in its reply, the Court is not 

inclined to accept Defendants’ argument. As noted above, RHI has diligently sought to 

complete discovery. It is not unreasonable to assume that RHI needed to obtain the 

discovery from Roth in order to adequately evaluate what experts to designate (on any of 

RHI’s claims) and the scope of RHI’s experts’ anticipated testimony. Had there been no 

delay in obtaining discovery from Roth there likely would be no need to extend the expert 

designation deadlines. Although the better course would have been for RHI to comply 

with the deadline despite the pendency of its motion to amend the Scheduling Order, the 

Court will excuse RHI’s non-compliance. Moreover, extending the deadline for all 

purposes will foster the Court’s preference that cases be resolved on their merits and it will 

avoid potential enforcement problems were the Court to only permit RHI to designate 

experts only as to the misappropriation claims. Finally, Defendants will suffer no prejudice 

if the expert designation deadlines are extended without qualification. 

 Accordingly, RHI’s motion to amend the Scheduling Order to continue RHI’s expert 

designation deadline is GRANTED. As noted above, the Court will issue a separate 

Amended Scheduling Order setting forth the new expert designation deadlines. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 6, 2015 

DAVID H. BARTICK 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-02481-WQH-DHB Document 69 Filed 08/06/15 Page 27 of 27