Jacam Chem. Co. 2013, LLC v. Shepard
Jacam Chem. Co. 2013, LLC v. Shepard
2020 WL 6263747 (D.N.D. 2020)
August 18, 2020
Hovland, Daniel L., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court affirmed the July 1, 2020 order requiring Jacam to produce documents in six disputed categories. The Court found that the requests were relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, and that Jacam had failed to demonstrate that the requests were unduly burdensome. The Court also set a precedent for how ESI should be handled in discovery disputes, encouraging parties to tailor their responses as much as possible in order to facilitate efficiency.
Jacam Chemical Company 2013, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
Arthur H. Shepard, Jr., and Geo Chemicals, LLC, Defendants
v.
Arthur H. Shepard, Jr., and Geo Chemicals, LLC, Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-093
United States District Court, D. North Dakota
Filed August 18, 2020
Counsel
Nicholas C. Grant, Janet Hendrick, Pro Hac Vice, Phillips Murrah P.C., Dallas, TX, Shea Ashley Thomas, Ebeltoft Sickler Lawyers PLLC, Dickinson, ND, for Plaintiff.Emily Niles, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, Patrick Arenz, Minneapolis, MN, Timothy Q. Purdon, Jeffrey Kuhlman, Kirsten H. Tuntland, Mitchell Lee Herren, Pro Hac Vice, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas, Scott R. Schillings, Sean D. Walsh, Hinkle Law Firm LLC, Wichita, KS, Zachary E. Pelham, Pearce & Durick, Bismarck, ND, for Defendants.
Hovland, Daniel L., United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER
*1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jacam Chemical Company 2013, LLC's (“Jacam”) appeal of United States Magistrate Judge Clare Hochhalter's July 1, 2020, order regarding the parties' discovery dispute, filed on July 14, 2020. See Doc. No. 123. Defendant Arthur H. Shepard, Jr. (“Shepard”) filed a response in opposition to the appeal on July 21, 2020. See Doc. No. 129. For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff's appeal is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
In January 2020, Shepard served a number of requests for production of documents on Jacam. In April 2020, Jacam served its responses and objections to those requests. In May 2020, the parties conferred on the disputed requests. On June 11, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Clare Hochhalter held a status conference with the parties regarding the remaining disputes on the requests for production. Following that status conference, Judge Hochhalter issued an order on June 12, 2020, providing:
1. Plaintiff is ordered to produce the documents in the six disputed categories (Requests for Production 11-12, 13, 20-21, 33, 34, and 36).
2. Plaintiff's current production format is acceptable.
Plaintiff is encouraged, however, to tailor their responses as much as possible in order to facilitate efficiency in the discovery process.
See Doc. No. 114. Jacam appealed the June 12, 2020 order. On June 30, 2020, the Court denied the appeal without prejudice and directed Judge Hochhalter to provide further explanation and clarification of his June 12, 2020, order. See Doc. No. 120. Judge Hochhalter issued an Order of Clarification on July 1, 2020, providing:
On June 12, 2020, the Court entered an Order containing rulings on the two discovery disputes discussed at the status conference the previous day. (Doc. No. 114).
The first dispute centered on Plaintiff's objections to Requests for Production 11-12, 13, 20-21, 33, 34, and 36. After discussion, the Court directed Plaintiff to produce these documents.
The second dispute concerned Defendant Shepard's objection to the “compilation” format of Plaintiff's production. Shepard described the format as overly burdensome, while Plaintiff defended it as the method of production used in related litigation. After hearing from both sides, the Court approved Plaintiff's use of the compilation format. In its subsequent Order, after stating “Plaintiff's current production format is acceptable,” the Court concluded, “Plaintiff is encouraged, however, to tailor their responses as much as possible ...” This sentence merely reflects the Court's wish that Plaintiff make a good-faith effort to avoid unnecessary burdens on Defendant, whatever the format used. Put another way, the Court sought to reinforce its wish, expressed repeatedly at the conference, that the parties collaborate to complete discovery in an efficient manner. But since the sentence appears to have introduced ambiguity into the Court's directive, it is hereby STRICKEN in its entirety.
As clarified, the Court's rulings are:
1. Plaintiff is ordered to produce the documents requested in the six disputed categories (Requests for Production 11-12, 13, 20-21, 33, 34, and 36).
*2 2. Plaintiff's current production format is acceptable.
See Doc. No. 122.
Jacam now appeals the July 1, 2020, order requiring it to produce the documents requested in Requests for Production 11-12, 13, 20-21, 33, and 36.[1]
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and District of North Dakota Local Rule 72.1(D), a magistrate judge is permitted to hear and determine non-dispositive matters in a civil case. Any party may appeal the determination to the district court judge assigned to the case who “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); D.N.D. Civ. L. R. 72.1(D)(2). A magistrate judge's decision in a discovery dispute is entitled to substantial deference, and will not be disturbed unless the “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law” standards are met. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Jones v. City of Elkhart, Ind., 737 F.3d 1107, 1115 (7th Cir. 2013). A magistrate judge's finding is clearly erroneous when, although there may be some evidence to support it, the reviewing court, after considering the entirety of the evidence, is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Dixon v. Crete Med. Clinic, P.C., 498 F.3d 837, 847 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The burden of showing a ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law rests with the party filing the appeal. Marks v. Struble, 347 F. Supp. 2d 136, 149 (D.N.J. 2004).
III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
Jacam contends that Judge Hochhalter's July 1, 2020, order is clearly erroneous and contrary to law because Requests for Production 11-12, 13, 20-21, 33, and 36 are irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and greatly disproportionate to the needs of the case. The Court disagrees.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Requests for Production 11-12 seek documents relating to Shepard between Jacam and Jacam's customers, potential customers, and suppliers since April 16, 2019. Request 13 seeks Jacam's internal documents relating to Shepard since April 16, 2019. Requests 20-21 seek Jacam's documents relating to Defendant Geo Chemicals and Gene Zaid—the founder of Jacam and the founder and CEO of Geo Chemicals—from limited periods of time. Request 33 seeks Jacam's board meeting minutes and notes relating to Shepard or Geo Chemicals. Request 36 seeks Jacam's proposed and actual contracts with certain customers of Jacam. The Court finds these requests relevant to Shepard's defense and/or counterclaim, and proportional to the needs of the case. Further, Jacam has failed to demonstrate that these requests are unduly burdensome.
*3 Alternatively, Jacam contends that Shepard should bear the costs of producing the documents sought in Requests for Production 11-12, 13, 20-21, 33, and 36. Finding Jacam has failed to demonstrate an undue burden or expense, the Court denies this request. See Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. ESIS, Inc., No. 2011 WL 1897213, *2 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2011) (“The general rule in discovery is that the responding party bears the costs of complying with discovery requests. But a responding party may ask the court to protect it from ‘undue burden or expense’ ....”).
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Hochhalter's order, the appeal and briefs, the applicable law, and the entire record. The Court finds that Judge Hochhalter's order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the July 1, 2020, order is affirmed. The Plaintiff's appeal (Doc. No. 123) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of August, 2020.