United States District Court, E.D. California
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ex rel. LOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR., Plaintiffs,
RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant. Event New Deadline
ORDER AFTER HEARING
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case was before the court on October 30, 2019, for hearing on
plaintiff-intervenor State of California's motion to
compel defendant Rite Aid Corporation to provide further
responses to California's Request for Production of
Documents (“RPD”) numbers 17-38 (ECF No. 249) and
defendant Rite Aid's motion for an extension of time to
provide responses to California's discovery requests and
to comply with the court's July 2, 2019 order (ECF No.
250). California Deputy Attorneys General Emmanuel Salazar
and Bernice Yew appeared on behalf of California. Attorney
Benjamin Smith appeared on behalf of Rite Aid.
discussed at the hearing, Rite Aid has produced some, but not
all, of the documents responsive to California's RPD Nos.
17-38. With respect to those that have been produced, Rite
Aid's production does not allow for California to
determine, with reasonable effort, which documents are
responsive to each specific request. Accordingly, Rite Aid
must supplement its discovery responses to identify which
documents are responsive to each of the requests in
California's Requests for Production of Documents, Set 7
(i.e., RPD Nos. 17-38). See City of Colton v. Am.
Promotional Events, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 578, 584-85 (C.D.
Cal. 2011) (“[A] party exercising Rule 34's option
to produce records as they are kept in the usual course of
business should organize the documents in such a manner that
the requesting party may obtain, with reasonable effort, the
documents responsive to their requests . . . . The standard
this Court will use in determining what is required will be
whether the production allows the requesting party to
reasonably determine what documents are responsive to its
requests. If it does, the production complies with Rule
34(b)(2)(E)(i)”); E. & J. Gallo Winery v.
Cantine Rallo, S.p.A., 2006 WL 2583672, at * 2 (E.D.
Cal. Sept. 7, 2006) (“Despite Defendant's
representation that it has produced 1026 pages of documents,
each grouping of which has been neatly labeled to designate
the category of documents at issue, it is reasonable for
Plaintiff to request a supplemental response which enables
them to determine which documents are responsive to each
request.”). It must do the same for the documents it
produced in response to California's RPD Nos. 1, 2, 15,
16, which were the subject of the July 2, 2019 order-the
order that Rite Aid currently seeks an extension of time to
comply with. See ECF Nos. 225, 250.
for these reasons, and for the additional reasons stated on
the record, it is hereby ORDERED that California's motion
to compel (ECF No. 249) and Rite Aid's request for an
extension of time (ECF No. 250) are granted as follows:
1. Rite Aid shall produce all documents responsive to
California's RPD Nos. 17-38 by no later than November 25,
2. The deadline for Rite Aid to comply with the court's
July 2, 2019 order, including its requirement that Ride Aid
produce all “patient medication profiles, ” is
extended to November 25, 2019.
3. By no later than November 25, 2019, Rite Aid shall also
provide a supplemental response to California's RPD Nos.
1, 2, 15, 16, and 18-38 that identifies which documents are
responsive to each request.
4. The scheduling dates related to Rite Aid's eleventh
affirmative defense, as set forth in the court's
September 30, 2019 order (see ECF No. 244 at 7-8),
are modified as follows:
Rite Aid Corporation's production of documents
responsive to RFP Set No. 7
November 25, 2019
Parties' stipulation, if agreed upon, to amend
the named defendant with relation back (including
removal of Rite Aid Corporation from pleadings)
December 13, 2019
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the pleadings (if
necessary following Parties' inability to
January 2, 2020
Defendant's opposition to motion to amend
February 10, 2020
Plaintiffs' reply re motion to amend
February 24, 2020
Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
 All other scheduling dates set forth
in the court's September 30, 2019 order remain ...