United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MITCHELL ENGINEERING,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-04022 SI

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL

I. Plaintiff’s motion

Plaintiff Mitchell Engineering has moved for an order compelling the City to produce emails

responsive to a document request propounded in September 2009. Plaintiff seeks emails “relating to

any actual, possible, or contemplated changes to the means or methods of performance by plaintiff on

actual or possible projects with [the City] or anyone else.” The parties apparently agreed at some point

on a list of search terms the City would employ in reviewing the emails of certain specified custodians.

According to plaintiff, however, the City informed plaintiff one hour before the parties’ in-person meetand-confer on February 9, 2010 that it would only produce emails containing the 41 search terms it had

“unilaterally selected” from plaintiffs’ list of 126 terms. 

The City counters that the remaining 85 search terms are not calculated to retrieve relevant

information about plaintiff or its construction projects. The City identifies a few specific terms it

believes are overbroad. For example, plaintiff has asked the City to search emails using the terms

“terminat*,” “LD,” and “liquidated damages.” The City explains, however, that these search terms will

produce vastly overbroad results because all of its construction contracts contain termination and

liquidated damages clauses. The Court agrees with the City that these specific terms are not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information, and DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel

Case 3:08-cv-04022-SI Document 90 Filed 03/09/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Although the parties apparently planned a meet-and-confer regarding email production

obligations generally, it appears that in light of the City’s pre-meeting announcement regarding its

limitation on plaintiff’s search terms, the actual meeting focused only on the City’s production.

2

as to these specific terms. 

The City further states that it ran searches using a handful of other search terms, including

“Central,” “Summit,” “Patrick Collins,” and “Xmas.” The City explains that these terms recovered

several documents not relevant to plaintiff’s case. The City does not explain why, after it had already

run these searches, it could not simply produce the documents that were relevant. The City has not

provided the Court with any basis for believing the terms are so overbroad as to justify the City’s failure

to produce responsive emails. Moreover, the City provides no explanation at all regarding the 80

remaining terms. The Court is not in a position to decide whether terms such as “4th Street,” “Lincoln,”

“CM Pros,” and “Skywest” are irrelevant or overbroad. Because the City has failed to explain its refusal

to produce terms responsive to plaintiff’s requests, plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to the

remaining search terms. The City is hereby ordered to produce emails responsive to plaintiff’s requests

no later than March 24, 2010.

II. Defendant’s motion

In its opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel, the City makes a brief request for an order

compelling plaintiff to produce emails responsive to the City’s document request, propounded in

January 2010. Neither party has explained the relevance (or lack thereof) of the City’s proposed search

terms. As explained above, the Court is in no position to determine the relevance of the 318 proposed

terms, which include such cryptic words as “lotus,” “Cemex,” and “schmalz.” In addition, there has

been no showing that the parties have complied with their meet-and-confer obligations as to the City’s

request.1

 The parties are therefore ordered to meet and confer no later than March 24, 2010 to resolve

their dispute concerning the scope of the City’s request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04022-SI Document 90 Filed 03/09/10 Page 2 of 2