The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL [ECF NO. 19]
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on behalf of himself and a putative class alleging that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and California law allegedly by sending Plaintiff and others unsolicited text messages regarding renewing membership in Defendant's fitness center. (ECF No. 1). Based upon the statements provided in the instant motion, it appears that there was a single text message sent to 30,354 former members of the Defendant's fitness centers by a third party contracted by Defendant.
Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties filed on April 26, 2013, to resolve a discovery dispute. (ECF No. 19). The motion itself is 105 pages and, with exhibits, the entire package is 292 pages. (Id.). At issue are 17 Requests for Production of Documents ("RFPs"), many of which are substantially similar. Defendant objected generally and without specificity prompting a claim by Plaintiff that the responses were "boilerplate."*fn1
Ironically, Plaintiff appended to the discussion of each disputed RFP a section entitled "Plaintiff's Analysis." Except for identifying bates numbers for documents produced, this 3 page "analysis" is virtually identical for each of the 17 disputed RFPs. Boilerplate, indeed.
The joint motion consists of Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to RFP's and Defendant's responses. As provided below, Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing parties to obtain discovery regarding "any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, "[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." Id. Relevant information for discovery purposes includes any information "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. There is no requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that "bears on" or could reasonably lead to matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have broad discretion to limit discovery where 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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should be imposed where the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.
A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). "For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons." Id. at 34(b). The responding party is responsible for all items in "the responding party's possession, custody, or control." Id. at 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is not required. Rather, "[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D.Cal.1995).
Prior to certification of a class, some discovery regarding the class may be appropriate. See Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009)("Our cases stand for the unremarkable proposition that often the pleadings alone will not resolve the question of class certification and that some discovery will be warranted."). Discovery likely is warranted where the requested discovery will resolve factual issues necessary for the determination of whether the action may be maintained as a class action. Kamm v. California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff carries the burden of making either a prima facie showing that the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) to maintain a class action have been met or "that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations." Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985).
Each of the disputed RFPs will be addressed below.
RFP 6 calls for the production of documents regarding the length of time Defendant has been operating fitness centers. Among other things, Defendant objected on the basis of relevance. Plaintiff has not provided any explanation regarding relevance. The relevance is not obvious. Defendant did produce certain documents based upon an agreement with Plaintiff narrowing the scope of the request. Plaintiff has not presented any basis for the Court to ...