Schmuckley v. Rite Aid Corporation ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the No. 2:12-cv-1699-KJM-EFB STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ex rel. 12 LOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR., 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER AFTER HEARING 14 v. 15 RITE AID CORPORATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 This case was before the court on October 30, 2019, for hearing on plaintiff-intervenor 19 State of California’s motion to compel defendant Rite Aid Corporation to provide further 20 responses to California’s Request for Production of Documents (“RPD”) numbers 17-38 (ECF 21 No. 249) and defendant Rite Aid’s motion for an extension of time to provide responses to 22 California’s discovery requests and to comply with the court’s July 2, 2019 order (ECF No. 250). 23 California Deputy Attorneys General Emmanuel Salazar and Bernice Yew appeared on behalf of 24 California. Attorney Benjamin Smith appeared on behalf of Rite Aid. 25 As discussed at the hearing, Rite Aid has produced some, but not all, of the documents 26 responsive to California’s RPD Nos. 17-38. With respect to those that have been produced, Rite 27 Aid’s production does not allow for California to determine, with reasonable effort, which 28 documents are responsive to each specific request. Accordingly, Rite Aid must supplement its 1 discovery responses to identify which documents are responsive to each of the requests in 2 California’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set 7 (i.e., RPD Nos. 17-38). See City of 3 Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 578, 584-85 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“[A] party 4 exercising Rule 34’s option to produce records as they are kept in the usual course of business 5 should organize the documents in such a manner that the requesting party may obtain, with 6 reasonable effort, the documents responsive to their requests . . . . The standard this Court will use 7 in determining what is required will be whether the production allows the requesting party to 8 reasonably determine what documents are responsive to its requests. If it does, the production 9 complies with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)”); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Cantine Rallo, S.p.A., 2006 WL 10 2583672, at * 2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2006) (“Despite Defendant’s representation that it has 11 produced 1026 pages of documents, each grouping of which has been neatly labeled to designate 12 the category of documents at issue, it is reasonable for Plaintiff to request a supplemental 13 response which enables them to determine which documents are responsive to each request.”). It 14 must do the same for the documents it produced in response to California’s RPD Nos. 1, 2, 15, 15 16, which were the subject of the July 2, 2019 order—the order that Rite Aid currently seeks an 16 extension of time to comply with. See ECF Nos. 225, 250. 17 Accordingly, for these reasons, and for the additional reasons stated on the record, it is 18 hereby ORDERED that California’s motion to compel (ECF No. 249) and Rite Aid’s request for 19 an extension of time (ECF No. 250) are granted as follows: 20 1. Rite Aid shall produce all documents responsive to California’s RPD Nos. 17-38 by no 21 later than November 25, 2019. 22 2. The deadline for Rite Aid to comply with the court’s July 2, 2019 order, including its 23 requirement that Ride Aid produce all “patient medication profiles,” is extended to November 25, 24 2019. 25 3. By no later than November 25, 2019, Rite Aid shall also provide a supplemental 26 response to California’s RPD Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, and 18-38 that identifies which documents are 27 responsive to each request. 28 ///// 1 4. The scheduling dates related to Rite Aid’s eleventh affirmative defense, as set forth in 2 | the court’s September 30, 2019 order (see ECF No. 244 at 7-8), are modified as follows: 3 4 New Deadline Rite Aid Corporation’s production November 25, 2019 5 of documents responsive to RFP Set No. 7 6 Parties’ stipulation, if agreed upon, December 13, 2019 to amend the named defendant 7 with relation back (including 8 removal of Rite Aid Corporation from pleadings) 9 Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the January 2, 2020 pleadings (if necessary following 10 Parties’ inability to stipulate) Defendant’s opposition to motion February 10, 2020 to amend 12 Plaintiffs’ reply re motion to February 24, 2020 amend 13 Hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the TBD! pleadings 14 15 So Ordered. 16 | DATED: November 4, 2019. tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |.§_ ' All other scheduling dates set forth in the court’s September 30, 2019 order remain in 28 | place.