Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co v. Reingold
Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co v. Reingold
2020 WL 12016704 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
January 31, 2020
Kim, Steve, United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court denied the motion to compel complete productions as moot, but required the Defendant to produce a privilege log for any ESI that is withheld on the basis of a recognized evidentiary privilege. The court also granted the motion to compel complete responses, requiring the Defendant to provide amended written responses that comply with the December 2015 revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co
v.
Leon Reingold
v.
Leon Reingold
Case No. 2:19-cv-5428-GW (SKx)
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed January 31, 2020
Counsel
Eric F. Au, Pro Hac Vice, Jason P. Gosselin, Pro Hac Vice, Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA, William A. Hanssen, Ryan Matthew Salzman, Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co.Rodney T. Lewin, Allyson P. Wittner, Law Offices of Rodney T. Lewin APC, Beverly Hills, CA, Greg Wegner Garrotto, Greg W Garrotto Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Leon Reingold.
Kim, Steve, United States Magistrate Judge
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
*1 Plaintiff MassMutual moves to compel Defendant Leon Reingold for complete responses and productions to Plaintiff's first set of requests for production and to compel Defendant to appear for his deposition on a date certain. The motion is denied in part and granted in part.
Plaintiff's motion to compel complete productions is denied as moot insofar as Defendant has produced non-privileged responsive documents already and committed to producing all remaining non-privileged responsive documents. Defendant must, however, produce a privilege log for responsive documents withheld on the basis of a recognized evidentiary privilege, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), within seven calendar days of his final production of non-privileged responsive documents (unless the parties agree to a later deadline) and in no event any later than 28 calendar days before the discovery cut-off deadline—currently March 13, 2020 without extension—set by the District Judge.
Plaintiff's motion to compel complete responses is granted to the extent that Defendant's written responses violate the December 2015 revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4), 34(b)(2)(B)-(C) (Dec. 1, 2015). For instance:
1. Responding parties must include deadlines for productions. See 2015 Adv. Comm. Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“The production must be completed either by the time for inspection specified in the request or by another reasonable time specifically identified in the response. When it is necessary to make the production in stages the response should specify the beginning and end dates of the production.”). Rule 26(e) provides no safe harbor to responding parties for belated productions that they could have made sooner with due diligence. See In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 846 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1357–58 (N.D. Ga. 2012).
2. Objections to document requests may no longer be boilerplate and general. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) & 2015 Adv. Comm. Note (“Rule 34(b)(2)(B) is amended to require that objections to Rule 34 requests be stated with specificity.”); Dao v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 2016 WL 796095, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2016) (“Rule 34 [ ] was amended on December 1, 2015 to require specific objections for requests for production.”). In particular, “[t]he 2015 Amendment to Rule 34(b)(2)(C) requires the responding party to state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of a stated objection.” Grodzitsky v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 2017 WL 2616917, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2017). That amendment “should end the confusion that frequently arises when a producing party states several objections and still produces information, leaving the requesting party uncertain whether any relevant and responsive information has been withheld on the basis of the objections.” 2015 Adv. Comm. Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).
Defendant's amended written responses shall be served on Plaintiff within 14 calendar days of this order. (Needless to say, although Defendant has filed no discovery motion, Plaintiff is equally bound by these rule changes.)
*2 For any residual disputes about the scope or timing of document productions after the service of Defendant's amended responses, counsel for the parties must meet and confer either in person with Plaintiff's counsel located in Los Angeles office or by telephone with Plaintiff's counsel located outside California. See L.R. 37-1. Before any such conference, counsel must familiarize themselves with the Court's Standing Order on Discovery Disputes, available under the Judges’ Requirements section of the District Court's website. If appropriate, the parties may then seek an informal discovery conference with the Court by following its procedures and requirements for such conference as posted on the District Court's website. “The failure of any counsel to comply with or cooperate in the foregoing procedures may result in the imposition of sanctions.” L.R. 37-4.
Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant's deposition on a date certain is denied without prejudice so long as Defendant appears for his deposition on mutually-agreed date that the parties select within seven calendar days of this order and which is noticed to occur no later than 28 calendar days before the discovery cut-off deadline—currently March 13, 2020 without extension—set by the District Judge. In selecting a mutually agreeable deadline, the parties are reminded that “methods of discovery may be used in any sequence” and that “discovery by one party does not require any other party to delay its discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3)(A)-(B); see Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., 2014 WL 4925578, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2014) (“[T]here is no rule of deposition priority’ ...”); Stein v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., 2014 WL 458021, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) (1970 amendment to Rule 26 “eliminate[d] any fixed priority in the sequence of discovery.”).
The hearing on this matter noticed for February 26, 2020 is vacated. Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied without prejudice to renewal if Defendant fails to comply with this order.