The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jacqueline Scott Corley United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court Northern District of California
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTERS (Dkt. Nos. 59 & 60)
Pending before the Court are the parties' Joint Letter Briefs laying out numerous 20 discovery disputes (Dkt. Nos. 59 & 60). The Court has carefully considered the letter briefs 21 and had the benefit of oral argument on November 8, 2012. As stated at the hearing, the Court 22 orders as follows with respect to the briefed discovery disputes. 23
A.Defendants' Discovery Disputes (Dkt. No. 59)
1.Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions
The parties met and conferred regarding this matter and Plaintiff has agreed to produce 26 two responsive witnesses by phone or video-conference, unless the witness is local in which 27 case the designee shall appear in person.
2.Federal Maritime Commission Document
The Court finds that any work product privilege associated with this document was 3 waived when the document was produced to the Federal Maritime Commission ("FMC"). 4 FMC. See S.E.C. v. Berry, No. 07-4431, 2011 WL 825742, at *3-6 (N.D. Cal. March 7, 5 2011); United States v.Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 497 (N.D. Cal. 2003); United States v. 6 Reyes, 239 F.R.D. 591,604 (N.D. Cal. 2006). To the extent that Plaintiff contends that 7 specific information within the document is protected from disclosure because of a concern 8 about retaliation, Plaintiff may submit the unredacted document to the Court for in camera 9 review. Plaintiff shall accompany its in camera submission with a letter brief explaining the 10 legal and factual basis for the redactions. Plaintiff shall simultaneously serve Defendants 11 with the FMC document redacted only to shield that information which it contends is 12 protected by its concern about retaliation, and a copy of their letter brief (redacted if necessary). Plaintiff shall do so on or before November 15, 2012; Defendants may file a 14 response by November 21, 2012.
3.Electronic Database of Service Contracts
Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with contact information for GT Nexus from whom Defendants can inquire as to the cost involved in obtaining access to the electronic database.
The parties shall then meet and confer regarding whether they can resolve this issue amongst 19 themselves. If not, the parties may file a letter brief wherein the parties shall set forth their 20 arguments regarding the cost, who should bear the cost, and relevance. 21
4.Richard Hiller Documents
Following submission of the letter brief, Plaintiff served a privilege log. The parties 23 shall meet and confer regarding Defendants' challenge to Plaintiff's assertion of privilege 24 with respect to documents relating to what the freight rating teams in China said about the 25 TAG auditors' findings. One potential resolution is for the parties to agree that Plaintiff's 26 disclosure of the information will not waive any privileges. If the parties are unable to 27 resolve the issue, they may file a letter brief detailing the dispute ...