Peterson v. Thomson International, Incorporated ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW PETERSON, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTED ISSUES 13 v. 14 (Doc. 39) THOMSON INT’L, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Following a mid-discovery status conference on February 8, 2023, the Court entered an 18 order addressing several ongoing discovery-related issues the parties brought to the Court’s 19 attention. (Doc. 36). The parties attempted to resolve the issues but ultimately filed a document 20 titled “Request for Court Resolution of the Disputed Issues” in which they presented competing 21 views of remaining issues and requested the Court’s intervention. (Doc. 39). The Court 22 convened a status conference with the parties on March 15, 2023, to further discuss the issues, 23 and afterwards invited the parties to file supplemental briefing in the event the parties did not 24 resolve the remaining issues. (Docs. 43-44). 25 On March 21, 2023, the parties filed a supplemental brief and again requested the Court 26 resolve one remaining issue relating to cost-sharing in connection with Thomson’s production of 27 third-party documents, most of which it obtained after receiving authorizations from individual Plaintiffs to obtain certain records. (Doc. 45). 1 The Court commends the parties’ counsel for their significant efforts that resulted in their 2 resolving disputes relating to a protective order and Plaintiffs’ authorizations without Court 3 intervention, and separately, for briefing and narrowing the remaining discovery dispute that the 4 Court addresses below. 5 Background 6 Plaintiffs are eight individuals from three different states and Canada that allege during 7 June and July 2020, they suffered damages after consuming Salmonella-contaminated onions that 8 Thomson introduced into the stream of commerce. They seek recovery for medical and 9 psychological care, lost income and pain and suffering. Plaintiffs claim Thomson is strictly liable 10 for selling an unreasonably dangerous and defective food product, and that Thomson may also be 11 liable under breach of warranty, negligence, and negligence per se theories of recovery. Thomson 12 contends its onions were not contaminated while in its possession, custody and control and it did 13 not cause any Salmonella outbreak that harmed Plaintiffs. 14 With the benefit of authorizations voluntarily provided by Plaintiffs to Thomson at its 15 request, Thomson has obtained from third parties medical and employment records relating to 16 Plaintiffs. Thomson has declined to provide copies of the records to Plaintiffs in response to their 17 discovery requests on the grounds that Plaintiffs “refuse to contribute and want the third party 18 documents for free.” (Doc. 45 at p.3). Thomson contends that Plaintiffs have sufficient recourse 19 to obtain the same documents directly from the third parties, but instead “want a copy of their 20 medical records for free to prepare for depositions and expert discovery, to litigate their claims 21 against defendant.” Id. at p.2. 22 Legal Standard 23 “The purpose of discovery is to make trial less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a 24 fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent possible, and to narrow 25 and clarify the issues in dispute.” Jadwin v. Cnty. Of Kern., No. 1:07-cv-0026-OWW-TAG, 2008 26 WL 2025093, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2008) (quotation and citations omitted). Litigants are entitled 27 to seek from each other discovery of information that is “relevant to the claim or defense of any 1 discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its 2 objection.” Jadwin, 2008 WL 2025093, at *1. (quotation and citations omitted). 3 In response to a party’s request for production of documents, the receiving party “is 4 obliged to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents or other things which are 5 in its ‘possession, custody or control’ on the date specified in the request.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 34(a)). 7 Discussion 8 Here, it does not appear Thomson contests the documents at issue are “relevant” and 9 subject to discovery under Rules 26 and 34 – indeed, it presumably sought and obtained the 10 documents from third parties because it considers them relevant to either or both Plaintiffs’ 11 claims or its own defenses.1 Instead, the singular issue is Thomson’s refusal to produce records it 12 obtained unless and until Plaintiffs agree to share in defraying the costs associated with obtaining 13 the records. 14 “Under the discovery rules, the presumption is that the responding party must bear the 15 expense of complying with discovery requests, but may involve the district court’s discretion 16 under Rule 26(c) to grant protective orders protecting him from undue burden or expense in doing 17 so, including orders conditioning discovery on the requesting party’s payment of the costs of 18 discovery.” Jadwin, 2008 WL 2025093, at *5 (quotation and citations omitted). “Cost-shifting 19 should only be ordered when discovery imposes an ‘undue burden or expense’ that outweighs the 20 likely benefits of the discovery and after consideration of all relevant factors.” Id. 21 The Court acknowledges authority cited by Thomson and other authority that permits the 22 Court under appropriate circumstances to direct cost-sharing along the lines Thomson seeks here. 23 But the cases Thomson cites are distinguishable from the case at hand. Thus, for instance, in 24 Jadwin (see Doc. 39 at p. 4; Doc. 45 at p. 4), although the Court ordered reimbursement of 25 reproduction costs, it appears the parties generally reached a stipulation regarding the terms of 26 1 Although Thomson reportedly objected to producing documents it provided to its experts 27 on, among other things, attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine grounds, the Court presumes that objection would dissolve were Thomson instead ordered to produce all documents 1 reimbursement and the Court merely ordered cost-sharing consistent with the parties’ agreement. 2 2008 WL 2025093, at *5. Similarly, in Mauna Kea Resort, LLC, v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co. (see 3 Doc. 39 at p. 4; Doc. 45 at p. 5), the Court directed the propounding party to pay approximately 4 half of the costs the producing party incurred in obtaining third-party documents; however, 5 similar to the facts in Jadwin, the parties agreed to share the costs in advance. 2009 WL 6 10677170, *3 (D. Haw. Mar. 3, 2009). 7 In re Asbestos Prods. Liability Litig., (see Doc. 39 at p. 4; Doc. 45 at p. 4), the Court 8 directed defendants to share pro-rata in plaintiff’s costs of obtaining third-party documents. 2011 9 WL 6150640, *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2011). However, the Court’s opinion does not cite, 10 acknowledge or analyze governing authority (e.g., Rules 26(b) & (c)) requiring a consideration of 11 whether production without cost-shifting imposes an “undue” burden, whether any burden is 12 outweighed by the benefits of discovery, and a consideration of all other relevant factors. 13 Here, the Court finds Thomson has not met its burden of demonstrating that the balance of 14 relevant factors under Rule 26 trumps the presumption that parties shoulder their own costs 15 associated with complying with discovery obligations. Thus, it is not clear from Thomson’s 16 filings precisely what total amount of proposed costs to be shared are at issue and, thus, whether 17 the costs are unduly burdensome. The Court’s balancing takes into account the fact that Plaintiffs 18 voluntarily provided authorizations that facilitated Thomson’s ability to request and obtain the 19 documents (thus, reducing the burden). In sum, while Thomson’s efforts to obtain the documents 20 at issue were burdensome, the Court cannot conclude that the burden was undue such that costs 21 should be shared.2 22 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Thomson’s request for an order requiring 23 Plaintiffs to share the costs that Thomson incurred in connection with requesting from third 24 parties the records at issue in this dispute is DENIED. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 2 The Court notes that, in the event Thomson is a prevailing party in this litigation, it will 1 It is FURTHER ORDERED that Thomson produce the records at issue in this dispute and 2 | which are called for by Plaintiffs’ discovery requests with any remaining, asserted objections 3 | within seven days of the date of this Order. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: □ March 23, 2023 | hr 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 «