ARIANNA ROSALES, et al., Plaintiff, v. FITFLOP USA, LLC, Defendant CASE NO. 11cv0973-W(KSC) United States District Court, S.D. California Filed December 10, 2012 Counsel Betsy Carol Manifold, Rachele R. Rickert, Marisa C. Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Karen Marie Leser-Grenon, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP, Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, San Diego, CA, Janine L. Pollack, Pro Hac Vice, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, Joshua Keller, Pro Hac Vice, Milberg LLP, New York, NY, James C. Shah, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Media, PA, Patricia N. Syverson, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff. Laura J. McKay, Bois Schiller and Flexner, Oakland, CA, Brooke A. Alexander, Pro Hac Vice, William S. Ohlemeyer, Pro Hac Vice, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, for Defendant. Crawford, Karen S., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE *1 Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute, as well as supporting and opposing points and authorities, declarations, and exhibits. [Doc. Nos. 38-39.] The parties' dispute centers on plaintiffs' First Set of First Set of Interrogatories, plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, protocol for ESI Production, and the sufficiency of defendant's initial disclosures. Plaintiffs contend that defendant FitFlop failed to provide adequate responses to Document Request Nos. 7, 8, 11, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 22, and Interrogatory No. 4. With respect to ESI protocol, plaintiffs contend that defendant must expand its list of custodians and key words in order to identify all responsive documents and information. In addition, plaintiffs argue that defendant's Rule 26 disclosures are inadequate, because it has refused to provide contact information for certain former employees. For the reasons outlined below, the Court finds that plaintiffs' request for an order compelling defendant to provide more complete responses to discovery must be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Background Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased FitFlop Footwear which was marketed through various retailers in the United States by defendant FitFlop USA LLC (“FitFlop”). According to the Complaint, FitFlop has marketed its footwear in the United States since 2007. Generally, plaintiffs allege that FitFlop engaged in deceptive and wrongful business practices, because its footwear does not provide the benefits claimed in its extensive advertising campaign. Plaintiffs allege that FitFlop has warranted and represented that its products will provide wearers with a variety of health benefits, but in reality FitFlop's footwear does not provide the promised benefits and may actually cause or exacerbate the type of problems it claims to protect against. [Doc. No. 1 at 1-4, 18-22.] Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint includes the following three causes of action: (1) Violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. et seq.). Under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, “unfair competition” means “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “[T]he plaintiff must establish that the practice is either unlawful (i.e., is forbidden by law), unfair (i.e., harm to victim outweighs any benefit) or fraudulent (i.e., is likely to deceive members of the public).” Albillo v. Intermodal Container Services, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 190, 206 (2003). (2) Violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750. et seq.). The CLRA provides that a defendant may be liable for “[r]epresenting that goods ... have ... characteristics, ... uses, [or] benefits ... which they do not have” or for “[r]epresenting that goods ... are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, ... if they are of another.” Cal. Civ. Code 1770(a)(5)&(7). Conduct that is “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer” violates the CLRA. Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 680 (2006). The CLRA is to be “liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.” Cal. Civ.Code, § 1760. (3) Breach of Express Warranty. *2 Section 2313 of the California Commercial Code states as follows: “(1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. (c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model. (2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as ‘warrant’ or ‘guarantee’ or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.” Cal. Comm. Code § 2313(1)&(2). “[T]o prevail on a breach of express warranty claim, the plaintiff must prove (1) the seller's statements constitute an ‘ affirmation of fact or promise’ or a ‘description of the goods’; (2) the statement was ‘part of the basis of the bargain’; and (3) the warranty was breached. Weinstat v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1227 (2010). Discussion The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is broad: “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party involved in the pending action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). However, a court may limit discovery of relevant material if it determines that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit. The party resisting discovery generally bears the burden to show that the discovery requested is irrelevant to the issues in the case or is overly broad, unduly burdensome, unreasonable, or oppressive. If the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is relevant and necessary. Henderson v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C., 269 F.R.D. 682, 686 (2010). I. Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Document Request No. 7 seeks exemplars of all sales, promotional, and informational brochures and advertisements “which in any way refer to, depict and/or discuss FitFlop Footwear, including all versions and drafts.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 4.] In response, FitFlop agreed to produce exemplars which were actually used for promotional purposes in the United States during the relevant time period,[1] because class members and prospective class members would not have relied on materials distributed outside the United States or on draft sales and promotional materials that were never distributed. FitFlop also contends that draft exemplars are not relevant, because the focus of the allegations in the Complaint is on whether the plaintiffs were misled by actual advertisements and not on any intent by FitFlop that could be inferred based on draft promotional materials. However, FitFlop has agreed to provide draft advertisements that were brought to the attention of senior marketing employees or executives who were decision-makers for the company. [Doc. No. 38, at p. 4.] *3 FitFlop's response to Request No. 7 is adequate. FitFlop has reasonably limited its responses to exemplars of advertising materials that were actually used for promotional purposes in the United States as there is nothing to indicate plaintiffs or potential plaintiffs would have been exposed to advertising materials distributed outside the United States. In addition, it was reasonable for FitFlop to limit production of draft exemplars that were brought to the attention of the company's decision-makers. Draft exemplars that were not brought to the attention of the company's decision-makers could not have had any impact on consumers, and plaintiffs have not argued convincingly that a broader production of draft exemplars would meet the relevance standard of Rule 26. Therefore, plaintiffs' request for an order requiring FitFlop to provide a more complete response to Request No. 7 is DENIED. Document Request No. 8 seeks “[e]xemplars of all packaging, labeling, instructions, and package inserts for FitFlop Footwear, including all versions and drafts.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 5.] In response to this request, FitFlop agreed to produce “exemplars of all packaging, labeling, instructions, and package inserts for FitFlop Footwear actually used in the United States during the relevant time period.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 5.] For the same reasons cited above in connection with Document Request No. 7, the Court finds that FitFlop provided an adequate response to this request. Therefore, plaintiffs' request for an order requiring FitFlop to provide a more complete response to Request No. 8 is DENIED. Document Request No. 11 seeks all documents “which evidence, reflect or relate” to marketing analyses or surveys which compare FitFlop Footwear “to any other sandal, or rocker bottom or instability-type footwear.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 5.] In response to this request, FitFlop said it would produce “all marketing reports or analyses of the American market in its possession, custody, or control which compare FitFlop Footwear to any other sandal or rocker bottom or instability-type footwear and all communications in its possession, custody, or control among FitFlop executives relating to such reports or analyses. [Doc. No. 38, at p. 5.] Plaintiffs argue this response is inadequate because FitFlop limited its production to communications “among FitFlop executives relating to such reports or analyses” when all documents in this category would be relevant to the issues raised in this action. [Doc. No. 38, at p. 5.] With respect to Document Request No. 11, the Court finds that FitFlop has improperly limited its response to “the American market” and to communications among FifFlop executives. Because the main issues in the case involve the manner in which FitFlop marketed its products in the United States, market reports and analyses, as well as any communications about these reports or analyses, would be relevant if FitFlop relied on them in any way to develop its advertising campaign for the United States market. Any such reports or analyses and other related communications would be relevant regardless of whether (1) they were prepared by FitFlop's parent company, FitFlop Ltd., (2) they were prepared by an executive, non-executive level employee, or some third party; and (3) they involved comparisons among similar products which were not limited to the American market. Therefore, this Court concludes FitFlop has improperly limited the scope of its response to Document Request No. 11. FitFlop's response to Document Request No. 11, along with its opposing arguments, also suggest that it may be withholding some responsive documents because they are not in FitFlop's actual possession but are instead in a location controlled by its parent company, FitFlop Ltd. In response to a request for production of documents, the discovery rules require parties to produce relevant documents in their “possession, custody, or control.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and 34(a)(1). “[A] party need not have actual possession of documents to be deemed in control of them.” In re Folding Carton Antittrust Litigation, 76 F.R.D. 420, 423 (N.D. Ill. 1977.) A party may be deemed in control of a document if it has the legal right to obtain it from a third party upon demand. Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650, 653 (11th Cir. 1984). “The relationship between the party and the person or entity having actual possession of the document is central in each case.... This position of control is usually the result of statute, affiliation or employment.” Estate of Young Through Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 294 (D. Nev. 1991). To the extent any documents responsive to Document Request No. 11 were prepared by or for FitFlop's parent company, FitFlop Ltd., or by a third party, they are in the possession, custody or control of FitFlop and are subject to production in this action. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs's request for an order requiring FitFlop to provide a more complete response to this request must be GRANTED. *4 Document Request No. 15 seeks “[a]ll documents, including contracts or agreements between [FitFlop] and any person relating to testing, researching, studying, or investigating the physiological or health effects, if any, of FitFlop Footwear, Microwobbleboard technology, or rocker-bottom type footwear.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 6.] In its response, FitFlop said it would produce “documents sufficient to show the relationship between FitFlop and any person who has received financial support from FitFlop in order to test, research, study, or investigate the physiological or health effects of FitFlop's products.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 6.] In the parties' Joint Motion, FitFlop agreed to provide “final contracts with each of its researchers” but has argued that any historical documents concerning the negotiation of these contracts are not relevant and are too burdensome to produce because they are not segregated in any easily ascertainable format. [Doc. No. 38, at p. 23.] Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that FitFlop's advertising campaign references and relies on “independent studies” to support its representations that wearing FitFlop Footwear results in certain benefits. [Doc. No. 1, at 1-2, 12.] Plaintiffs allege that FitFlop's references to these “independent studies” are deceptive, and they question whether the studies are actually independent. In support of their position, plaintiffs have cited other studies which have reached conclusions that are contrary to studies cited by FitFlop. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 13-14.] Plaintiffs are entitled to discover all documentary evidence showing the precise nature of the relationship between FitFlop and any parties who have conducted any studies, tests, research, or investigations about the benefits of wearing FitFlop Footwear that were referenced by FitFlop in any advertising materials accessible to consumers in the United States. This includes any historical documents concerning the negotiation of these contracts or agreements. Therefore, FitFlop has improperly limited its response to Document Request No. 15 to “final agreements” and to “documents sufficient to show the relationship between FitFlop and any person who has received financial support from FitFlop in order to test, research, study, or investigate the physiological or health effects of FitFlop's products.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 6, 23.] As noted above, all responsive documents must be produced regardless of whether they are possessed by FitFlop, its parent company, FitFlop Ltd., or by a third party. In other words, this Court considers any and all documents responsive to Request No. 15 to be within the possession, custody, or control of FitFlop and to be subject to production in this action. Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs' request for an order requiring FitFlop to provide a more complete response to Request No. 15 is GRANTED. Document Request No. 18 seeks “[a]ll organizational charts reflecting [FitFlop's] agents or employees whose responsibilities include the design, marketing, advertising, or sale of FitFlop Footwear.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 6.] FitFlop responded that it “will produce documents sufficient to show the nature of FitFlop's organizational structure.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 6.] According to plaintiffs, FitFlop produced one organizational chart dated May 2012 which only shows its United States personnel. FitFlop argues that it should not be compelled to provide a further response to this request for two main reasons. First, FitFlop has represented that it does not keep organizational charts in the regular course of business as it does not update this information on a regular basis each time an employee is hired or leaves the company. As a result, it would be required to create a document or multiple documents in order to fully and completely respond to this request, and it is not required to do so under the Federal Rules. FitFlop is correct. Requests for production of documents “cannot be used to require the adverse party to prepare, or cause to be prepared, a writing to be produced for inspection, but can be used only to require the production of things in existence.” Soetaert v. Kansas City Coca Cola Bottling Co., 16 F.R.D. 1, 2 (W.D. Mo. 1954). *5 Second, FitFlop contends that its internal structure is proprietary and irrelevant to the subject matter of the litigation. FitFlop also argues that the internal structure of its parent company is irrelevant because it is not a party to the action. In addition, FitFlop states that it has already provided plaintiffs with “the names and titles of those individuals likely to have responsive documents.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 23.] However, FitFlop has not represented that it has identified all employees involved in the design, marketing, and sale of FitFlop Footwear, and this was the focus of Document Request No. 18. Plaintiffs are entitled to discover this information and were attempting to do so in their request for organizational charts. Plaintiffs argue convincingly that they will be prejudiced in their ability to identify and depose all relevant witnesses if FitFlop is not required to provide this limited organizational information. Organizational information for FitFlop's parent company is not irrelevant to the extent it relates to the design, marketing, and advertising of FitFlop Footwear in the United States. FitFlop has represented, for example, that the founder and former creative director of its parent company in the United Kingdom is responsible for advertising creation, and during the relevant time period, she was “intimately involved in its advertising.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 8, 22.] During meet and confer sessions, FitFlop also confirmed that its parent company in the United Kingdom is responsible for marketing and design decisions for marketing in the United States. [Doc. No. 38, at p. 15.] According to plaintiffs, FitFlop Footwear was designed and marketed beginning in 2005 and has been marketed in the United States since May 2007. [Doc. No. 38, at p. 15.] To its credit, FitFlop offered during the meet and confer process to prepare a list of employees involved in design, marketing, advertising, or sale of FitFlop Footwear, along with their corresponding job titles. However, plaintiffs rejected this compromise. [Doc. No. 38-1, at p. 5.] Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs' request for an order compelling FitFlop to provide a more complete response to Document Request No. 18 must be GRANTED. However, in lieu of organizational charts, FitFlop shall identify the names and titles of all employees or former employees whose responsibilities include or have included the design, marketing, advertising, or sale of FitFlop Footwear for the United States market from the time product creation began until the date this Order is filed.[2] To the extent employees at FitFlop's parent company are or have been responsible for the design, marketing, or advertising of FitFlop Footwear sold in the United States, FitFlop must identify them in response to this request. Document Request Nos. 19, 20, and 22. Document Request No. 19 seeks: “All documents constituting or regarding inquiries, complaints or communications regarding FitFlop Footwear with consumers, media, governmental regulatory agencies, and/or consumer protection organizations of any type.” FitFlop responded that it would produce “all inquiries, complaints or communications within its possession, custody, or control, submitted to FitFlop by American consumers, media, and governmental regulatory agencies regarding FitFlop footwear.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 6-7.] Document Request No. 20 seeks: “All documents constituting or regarding testimonials or product reviews from consumers or consumer organizations of any type concerning the benefits or detriments of wearing FitFlop Footwear.” FitFlop responded that it will produce “all testimonials or customer reviews within its possession, custody, or control, submitted to FitFlop by American consumers or American consumer organizations concerning the benefits or detriments of wearing FitFlop Footwear.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 7.] *6 Document Request No. 22 seeks: “All documents which refer or discuss the United States Federal Trade Commission, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, or any other regulatory, governmental, or industry group (foreign or otherwise) and the advertising, marketing or sale of FitFlop Footwear.” FitFlop responded that it will “produce all correspondences, within its possession, custody, or control, between FitFlop and the United States Federal Trade Commission, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, or any other regulatory, governmental, or industry group in the United States.” [Doc. No. 38, at p. 7-8.] Plaintiffs argue that FitFlop's responses to Document Request Nos. 19, 20, 22 are inadequate, because it has limited its production of responsive documents to consumers, organizations, and governmental entities in the United States. Plaintiffs believe responsive documents related to FitFlop's encounters with foreign consumers and foreign regulatory agencies are relevant because FifFlop sells the same products and makes the same representations about its products in other countries. The Court agrees with FitFlop that it would be overly burdensome to require FitFlop to produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 19, 20, and 22 that relate to encounters it may have had with foreign consumers and foreign regulatory agencies. In addition, the relevance of any such documents is questionable. Foreign consumers are not potential class members and any complaints by foreign consumers would be governed by a different set of laws which may or may not be the same or similar to those in the United States. Therefore, the Court finds that FitFlop's responses to Request Nos. 19, 20, and 22 are adequate. As a result, plaintiffs request for an order compelling FitFlop to provide further responses to Document Request Nos. 19, 20, and 22 must be DENIED. II. Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 4 states as follows: “Identify all person(s) involved at any time in the creation of advertising for FitFlop Footwear by stating each person(s) name, title, employer, business address and department or division, time period of involvement, and whether the person is currently employed by [FitFlop] and, if not, the person's last known home address, business address and telephone number.” In response to this Interrogatory, FitFlop provided the name of its founder and creative directive at an address in London. Plaintiffs contend FitFlop's response to this request is incomplete, because FitFlop has a marketing director, as well as a global marketing director. The information sought in Interrogatory No. 4 is related to plaintiffs' request for organizational charts in Document Request No. 18. Similar to Document Request No. 18, the Court finds that plaintiffs' request for an order compelling FitFlop to provide a more complete response to this Interrogatory must be GRANTED. FitFlop must identify the names and titles of all employees or former employees whose responsibilities include or have included the design, marketing, advertising, or sale of FitFlop Footwear beginning in 2005 until the date this lawsuit was filed. To the extent employees at FitFlop's parent company are or have been responsible for the design, marketing, or advertising of FitFlop Footwear sold in the United States, FitFlop must identify them in response to this request. As to these employees or former employees, FitFlop must also provide the time period of their involvement, indicate whether they are currently employed by FitFlop, and disclose their last known business contact information. For reasons of privacy, FitFlop need not provide home addresses unless that is all that is available. To the extent home addresses are disclosed, the information shall remain confidential and for attorneys' eyes only. III. Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI). A. ESI Custodians. *7 The parties previously agreed to a list of ESI custodians. However, plaintiffs now seek an order requiring FitFlop to add the names of four more ESI custodians based on information it has obtained about the job responsibilities for these individuals. [Doc. No. 38, at p. 9.] FitFlop believes that it has already identified all employees who should be included in the list of ESI custodians. As a result, FitFlop argues that the Court should not compel the addition of four additional custodians who have been identified by plaintiff. FitFlop does not believe the addition of these names to the list of ESI custodians is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence based on the responsibilities that these individuals have or have had within the company. Based on the information provided by plaintiffs about their respective job responsibilities at FitFlop, the Court finds that Candice Williams, Kelly Dewhirst, and Jonathan Pennington must be included in the list of ESI custodians. However, FitFlop has represented that Irene Celli “never held any responsibility for the United States market,” and plaintiffs have not provided sufficient information to justify adding Irene Celli to the list of ESI custodians. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiffs' request for an order compelling FitFlop to add to the list of ESI custodians must be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. B. Key Words. The parties previously agreed to a list of 134 key words to be used for ESI search purposes. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the addition of 17 more words to the list, because it believes the current list will result in an unjustifiably narrow set of results. FitFlop argues that the Court should not compel 17 additions to the list of key words because it would be overly burdensome and unreasonably duplicative. FitFlop believes that the 17 proposed additions are poorly crafted and too generic. FitFlop also believes that all relevant documents have already been located using the extensive list of key words that were previously negotiated as part of a lengthy meet and confer process between the parties. With respect to ESI key words, the parties' papers fail to provide sufficient information for the Court to make any determination. Therefore, plaintiffs request for an order compelling 17 additions to the list of key words for ESI search purposes is DENIED without prejudice. The parties are ordered to further meet and confer within two weeks from the date this Order is entered. If they are still unable to reach agreement, counsel may contact chambers to schedule a telephonic status conference with the Court. IV. Initial Disclosures. In its Rule 26 disclosures, FitFlop identified two employees as individuals who may have discoverable information. [Doc. No. 38, at p. 18.] Apparently, these individuals were employed by FitFlop's parent company in the United Kingdom. [Doc. No. 38, at p. 19.] However, FitFlop has represented that these individuals are no longer employed by its parent company. As a result, FitFlop has refused to provide any contact information for them. Instead, FifFlop wants to amends its initial disclosures to delete their names as it does not intend to rely on either of them to support its defenses. Because FitFlop represented in its initial disclosures that these two employees may have discoverable information, plaintiffs have a legitimate interest in contacting them to determine whether they can provide information relevant to the issues raised in the Complaint. FitFlop cannot now preclude plaintiffs from doing so by refusing to disclose their last known contact information. As outlined more fully above, and for purposes of discovery in this action, FitFlop is deemed to have possession, custody or control over this information, and it is subject to production in this action. Therefore, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Data Protection Act of 1998, plaintiffs' request for an order compelling FitFlop to provide the last known contact information for its two former employees identified in FitFlop's initial disclosures and in the parties' Joint Motion must be GRANTED. Conclusion *8 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiffs' request for an order compelling defendant to provide more complete responses to discovery must be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. No later than December 21, 2012, FitFlop shall, as outlined more fully above, provide further responses to Document Request Nos. 11, 15, and 18 and Interrogatory No. 4. FitFlop need not provide further responses to Document Request Nos. 7, 8, 19, 20, and 22. 2. No later than December 21, 2012, FitFlop shall, as outlined more fully above, add Candace Williams, Kelly Dewhirst,and Jonathan Pennington to its list of ESI custodians and perform all related ESI searches using these names. 3. No later than December 21, 2012, the parties shall participate in a meaningful meet and confer about plaintiffs' proposed list of 17 additions to the list of ESI key words. If the parties are unable to agree, they may within three Court days of reaching an impasse contact chambers to schedule a telephonic status conference with the Court. 4. No later than December 21. 2012, FitFlop shall supplement its initial disclosures by providing plaintiffs with last known contact information for two former employees who were identified in FitFlop's initial disclosures and in the parties' Joint Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 12/7, 2012 Footnotes [1] Request No. 7 is also overly broad because it does not specify the “relevant time period.” However, plaintiffs do not contend that defendant failed to produce all documents for the “relevant time period.” Nor does it appear from the papers submitted that plaintiffs have defined the“relevant time period” or that the parties agreed to a “relevant time period” during meet and confer sessions. Therefore, the Court will not rewrite the request to specify the “relevant time period” or order FitFlop to produce all responsive documents during a particular time period. [2] FitFlop is also reminded of its duty to supplement its responses to discovery “in a timely manner” if there are changes in the future which render its responses incomplete “in some material respect.” Fed.R.Civ. P. 26(e).