Raynaldo v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RONALD RAYNALDO, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-05808-HSG (KAW) 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TERMINATING 5/17/124 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER RE 9 v. PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 10 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., [Discovery Letter No. 2] 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 103 12 13 14 On May 17, 2024, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Plaintiffs’ requests for 15 production of documents. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 103.) As Defendant points out, and Plaintiffs 16 acknowledge, the format of the letter does not comply with the Court’s standing order. Id. at 1 n. 17 1, 3. While Plaintiffs contend that the letter does not comply due to the Court’s joint letter page 18 limit, if the parties require additional pages to comply with the Court’s standing order, they may 19 request them after they have sufficiently met and conferred to narrow the scope of their dispute. 20 Regardless, upon a cursory review, the letter pertains to the general scope of discovery, 21 and whether Defendant may unilaterally limit the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests to the allegedly 22 defective F-CAN system. (See Joint Letter at 1-3.) To aid the parties in their meet and confer 23 efforts, the Court observes that Defendant appears to be improperly narrowing the scope of the 24 requests, because the alleged parasitic drain defect may be found in battery investigation 25 documents that do not include the explicit F-CAN search terms. (See, e.g., Joint Letter at 2, Ex. 1 26 at 10.) The Court also notes that, absent an agreement from the propounding party, under Rule 27 34(b)(2)(B), responsive documents must either be simultaneously produced with the responses, or 1 produced. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Merely promising to produce documents at an uncertain, 2 || future date does not satisfy one’s discovery obligation. (See Joint Letter, Ex. 1 at 10.) Finally, the 3 Court implores Defendant to be more judicious when asserting objections to discovery requests, as 4 || neither of the exemplar requests appear to be vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, 5 or otherwise run afoul of Rule 26. The fact that Defendant contends that it is “not aware of a 6 ‘Parasitic Drain Defect’ as defined by Plaintiffs” is not well taken, as Defendant is well aware of 7 Plaintiffs’ allegations. (See Joint Letter, Ex. 1 at 9-10, 69.) Finally, the Court does not tolerate 8 “general objections” to discovery. See Springer v. Gen. Atomics Aeronautical Sys., 16-cv-2331- 9 BTM-KSC, 2018 WL 490745 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018). Thus, no discovery responses served in 10 || matters pending before this Court should contain any such objections, whether as a preface to 11 discovery responses or repeated verbatim in multiple responses. 12 Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer to further narrow the scope of their 13 current dispute. In doing so, they are directed to review Paragraph 9 of the Northern District 14 Guidelines for Professional Conduct, which pertain to discovery, as well as the Northern District 3 15 E-Discovery (ESI) Guidelines, which are available at: https://cand.uscourts.gov/rules/northern- 16 || district-guidelines/, If the parties are unable to entirely resolve their dispute, they are ordered to 3 17 file another joint discovery letter. If they require additional pages, they shall file a stipulation 18 || requesting same. To the extent that the parties have a dispute regarding ESI and search terms, that 19 dispute may be addressed in a joint letter separate from general requests for production of 20 || documents. 21 This resolves Dkt. No. 103. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: May 21, 2024 . 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28