The opinion of the court was delivered by: Louisa S Porter United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY MOTION [ECF No. 156]
On December 15, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Motion. (ECF No. 156.) Plaintiffs request the following: (1) an extension of the limited discovery deadline from December 23, 2011 to February 3, 2012; (2) a requirement that each Defendant run document searches containing abbreviations and acronyms for agreed-upon search terms concepts;*fn1 and (3) a requirement that each Defendant produce all documents that reflect the terms and effective dates of any minimum advertised price ("MAP") policy in effect at any time between January 1, 2004 and July 31, 2008.
Upon thorough review of the parties' moving papers and relevant law, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' requests.
1. Extension of Discovery Deadline
Plaintiffs contend the discovery deadline currently set for December 23, 2011 should be extended to February 1, 2012, so that Plaintiffs can complete their document review and conduct targeted depositions of key witnesses. First, Plaintiffs contend they have been diligent in pursuing discovery afforded by Judge Burns' order. (ECF No. 133.) Second, Plaintiffs contend Defendants' production delays after the parties filed their stipulation to extend the original discovery deadline of December 1, 2011 have made it difficult for Plaintiffs to review the late-arriving productions, analyze the interaction of all seven productions, effectively identify appropriate deponents, and schedule and complete meaningful depositions by December 23, 2011. (ECF No. 156 at 3.) Finally, Plaintiffs represent that a dispute arose during the December 15, 2011 deposition of Yamaha Corporation of America Senior Vice-President Tom Sumner's deposition about the scope of Judge Burns' order regarding discovery of who attended or participated in meetings at the trade shows alleged in the amended consolidated complaint, thereby further supporting the need for an extension of the discovery deadline. Id. at 4. At this point, Plaintiffs have reached out to all Defendants to arrange a total of 10 depositions, but do not believe these depositions can be completed before the current December 23, 2011 discovery deadline.
Defendants oppose the extension of the discovery deadline because they contend Plaintiffs were not diligent in pursuing discovery from Defendants and, in any event, have been in possession of Defendants' complete interrogatory answers as well as substantial document productions for many weeks prior to the December 23, 2011 deadline. (ECF No. 156 at 5.) Nevertheless, Defendants contend Plaintiffs failed to request their first deposition until December 9, 2011. Id. Further, Defendants contend there is no legal basis for Plaintiffs' position that they could not begin an efficient deposition process until they received the last document from the last Defendant who produced documents. Id. Despite Plaintiffs' lack of diligence, Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs taking, after December 23, 2011, depositions that have been noticed or otherwise identified by Plaintiffs, but for which the deponent is unavailable to appear prior to the December 23 deadline. Id.
Based on Defendants' non-opposition to Plaintiffs taking already-identified depositions after the December 23, 2011 deadline, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' request to extend the discovery deadline to February 1, 2012. However, any further discovery conducted after December 23, 2011 is limited to the completion of the 10 depositions Plaintiffs have already specifically identified, without further court order. If further depositions appear necessary, counsel shall contact the Court immediately.
2. Document Searches Containing Abbreviations and Acronyms
Second, Plaintiffs request that each Defendant run document searches containing abbreviations and acronyms for agreed-upon search terms.
Prior to serving their discovery responses, Defendants notified Plaintiff they intended to use search term queries to search electronically-stored information ("ESI") in their possession, and asked Plaintiffs to provide search terms. Plaintiffs contend they were unable to meaningfully assist Defendants in fashioning an appropriate search methodology in light of Defendants' unwillingness to provide them relevant information. (ECF No. 156-1 at 5-6.) After Defendants provided Plaintiffs with their chosen search terms shortly before serving their discovery responses, Plaintiffs realized the proposed terms were too restrictive and unlikely to capture some highly relevant documents. Id. at 6. Therefore, Plaintiffs agreed with Defendants to modify the proposed search strings, and agreed that Defendants would employ search terms that included other Defendant names in an effort to capture Defendant-to-Defendant communications. Id. As Defendants produced documents in late November and early December, Plaintiffs contend they realized certain Defendants used abbreviations or acronyms in the internal communications when referring to other Defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs contend Defendants' search for Defendant names did not capture the agreed-upon universe of responsive documents because the commonly used abbreviations were not included in Defendants' searches.
Based thereon, Plaintiffs request each Defendant to (i) identify abbreviations or acronyms commonly used within the Defendant corporation for any of the agreed-upon search terms, or affirmatively state that no abbreviations or acronyms are commonly used; (ii) state whether the Defendant included all identified abbreviations and acronyms in its search for responsive documents; and (iii) if abbreviations and acronyms were identified but not included in Defendant's search, re-run its search and produce new responsive documents. (ECF No. 156-1.)
Defendants contend the Court should deny Plaintiffs' request compelling Defendants to modify the agreements regarding search terms that were reached with Plaintiffs, especially since Defendants have already incurred substantial expense as a result of the agreement during a limited discovery period. (ECF No. 157 at 6.) First, Defendants contend Plaintiffs ignore the fact that the terms already searched were selected and agreed upon because they were the terms most likely to produce responsive documents.*fn2 Id. The new search terms Plaintiffs have proposed would require some Defendants to review tens of thousands of additional documents that would likely yield only a very small number of additional responsive documents. Second, Defendants contend Plaintiff had ample opportunity to previously ask Defendants to add abbreviations for certain Defendants' business names to their search terms, but failed to do so. Id. at 7. Before Defendants commenced their review of documents, they contacted Plaintiffs to meet and confer regarding the search terms for their ESI, a request Plaintiffs declined. Id. at 7-8. Subsequently, Defendants sent a letter to Plaintiffs detailing the specific searches, and Plaintiffs did not raise any objections. Id. at 8. Defendants therefore ran their searches and started reviewing documents. Id. Weeks later (after Defendants had undertaken the substantial burden and expense of reviewing documents), Plaintiffs contacted Defendants to discuss the search terms and each Defendant negotiated an agreement ...