Timothy Dufour, et al v. Be LLC

20 discovery from Monterey's system. Id. at 5. They are concerned about production both because 21 they assert there has been spoliation in the case (albeit not by Monterey), and Monterey has said that 22 it may move for summary judgment soon. Id. at 2-3, 5. That makes Plaintiffs nervous about timing. 23 Monterey essentially says that it is doing the best it can, it has done computer searches on a 24 computer-by-computer basis, and it has -- with Plaintiffs' input -- upped the search terms used from 7 25 to 40. Id. at 3-5. 26 The court held a hearing on December 20, 2012. On this record, there is not a reason to appoint 27 a third party to do the work. Monterey is responsive to Plaintiffs' requests. If there is an interplay 28 with deadlines in the district court, that is an understandable concern: Monterey is concerned that this is premature in a case that is pre-certification, and Plaintiffs are nervous about any summary 2 judgment deadlines. Going forward, the parties should raise those case management concerns here 3 and in the district court. As to producing information now, the court's view is that Monterey has 4 been producing it, the case is a 2009 case, and that bridge (producing now versus post-certification) 5 seems to have been crossed already. 6 The parties discussed three more computers that should be searched with the keywords. Those 7 belong to Scott Little, Mark Thieu, and Pamela Carlson. The court and the parties discussed some 8 investigative approaches to running those searches such as fashioning time and custodian parameters 9 for email searches at least initially. For example, one could search only for emails among three set 10 people for November 2008 with certain keywords (or all emails, for that matter) and use that as a 11 means to evaluate what ought to happen next. If there are real burden arguments, the parties will 12 confer about them. If the parties need the court's help in resolving the disputes, they should include