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 STATEMENTS REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES, (Dkt. Nos. 83 & 86)
Pending before the Court are two Joint Statements regarding discovery disputes. First, Plaintiff seeks further responses to its Request for the Production of Documents No. 1(b) 21 from Defendants, SeaMaster Logistics, Inc., and Toll Global Forwarding (Americas), Inc. 22
(Dkt. Nos. 86 & 87.)*fn1 [previously named as Summit Logistics International, Inc.] Second, 23
Defendant SeaMaster Logistics, Inc., seeks a further response to Request for the Production 24 of Documents No. 23. (Dkt. No. 83). Because resolution of both these disputes turns on the 25 proportionality analysis called for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the Court addresses 26 the disputes together.
On October 17, 2012, the parties filed two separate Joint Statements outlining 3 numerous discovery disputes (ten in total). (Dkt. Nos. 59 & 60.) Additional discovery 4 disputes followed. On November 8, 2012, the Court heard oral argument regarding the 5 pending disputes, and ordered the parties to meet and confer further regarding some of the 6 disputes; the remainder were resolved by order of November 8, 2012. (Dkt. No. 77). Fact 7 discovery closed on November 28, 2012; on that same date, the parties filed another series of Joint Statements regarding discovery disputes, some of which follow-up on matters addressed 9 at the hearing on November 8, 2012 and others raise entirely new disputes. The pending 10 disputes represent one of each. 11
As an initial matter, the Court notes that trial in these cases is scheduled to begin on January 28, 2013. Despite this, the parties continue to demand extensive discovery from each 14 other and dispute the thoroughness of productions that began months ago. The Court must 15 weigh each side's discovery requests under the proportionality standard set forth in Rule 26. 16
The Court must limit discovery where: 17
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, ...