Palmer v. Cognizant Tech. Sols. Corp.
Palmer v. Cognizant Tech. Sols. Corp.
2022 WL 3572698 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
January 27, 2022
Gee, Dolly M., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court found that the Motion to Compel was not untimely due to the late-discovered migration issue involving Cognizant's ESI. The Court's decision emphasizes the importance of ESI in legal proceedings, and the need to ensure that all relevant ESI is properly considered.
Additional Decisions
Christy Palmer, et al.,
v.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al
v.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al
Case No. CV 17-6848-DMG (PLAx)
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed January 27, 2022
Counsel
Daniel A. Kotchen, Pro Hac Vice, Lindsey M. Grunert, Pro Hac Vice, Mark A. Hammervold, Pro Hac Vice, Daniel Low, Kotchen and Low LLP, Washington, DC, Navid Soleymani, Navid Yadegar, Yadegar Minoofar and Soleymani LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Christy Palmer, Vartan Piroumian, Brian Cox.Daniel A. Kotchen, Lindsey M. Grunert, Mark A. Hammervold, Pro Hac Vice, Daniel Low, Kotchen and Low LLP, Washington, DC, for Jean-Claude Franchitti.
Elizabeth Aislinn Dooley, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Karl G. Nelson, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX, Katherine V. A. Smith, Lauren M. Blas, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew Thomas Sessions, Michele L. Maryott, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, for Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al.
Gee, Dolly M., United States District Judge
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER [234]
*1 On December 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Review of the December 13, 2021 Order of Hon. Paul L. Abrams, United States Magistrate Judge, denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Cognizant's Motion to Quash. [Doc. # 234.] The motion is fully briefed. [See Doc. ## 239 (“Opp.”), 247 (“Reply”).] In light of the parties’ written submissions, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 19, 2021, the Court extended the discovery cut-off because of an unexpected and recently discovered problem involving Cognizant's migration of its email storage from one system to another. [Doc. # 157.] The August 19 Order provided for a one-month extension of all non-expert discovery, until October 15, 2021. The non-expert discovery cut-off relating to the email migration glitch was extended to December 16, 2021, but discovery to be taken after October 15, 2021 was limited “to that arising from or related to the late-discovered migration issue or evidence produced belatedly because of it.” Id. at 2.
On December 13, 2021, Judge Abrams issued an order denying one motion to compel filed by Plaintiffs, one motion to compel filed by Cognizant, and one motion to quash filed by Cognizant. December 13 Order at 5 [Doc. # 233]. Plaintiffs challenge the denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Cognizant's Motion to Quash.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel challenged Cognizant's designation of certain documents as privileged. Plaintiffs argued that Cognizant had improperly withheld documents produced from the laptop of Abigail Israel, Cognizant's former Director of Affirmative Action and EEO Compliance. Id. at 1.[1] Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel was filed on November 24, 2021, and noticed for hearing on December 15, 2021. Because Judge Abrams found Plaintiffs’ motion “ha[d] nothing to do with the “late-discovered migration issue or evidence produced belatedly because of it,” yet was noticed for hearing after October 15, 2021, Judge Abrams denied the motion as untimely. Id. at 4.
Judge Abrams’ December 13 Order also denied as untimely Cognizant's Motion to Quash. December 13 Order at 5. Cognizant sought to quash a subpoena served by Plaintiffs on Biddle Consulting Group, Inc. (“Biddle”), Cognizant's consultant. Id. at 2. The Motion to Quash was noticed for hearing on October 28, 2021. Because it was unrelated to the migration issue, Judge Abrams denied it as untimely. Id. at 5.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Where a district court considers objections to a magistrate judge's rulings on nondispositive matters, the magistrate judge's disposition will be set aside only if it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(a); see also United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he magistrate judge's decision in ... nondispositive matters is entitled to great deference by the district court.”).
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Compel
*2 Plaintiffs argue that Judge Abrams’ December 13 Order was clearly erroneous in concluding that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel was unrelated to the late-discovered migration issue, because the documents from Ms. Israel's laptop were in fact produced after October 15, 2021 because of the late-discovered migration issue. Cognizant concedes that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel challenged Cognizant's withholding of documents that were produced after October 15, 2021, the deadline for non-migration-glitch discovery. See Opp. at 7. Cognizant also concedes that the documents were produced late because of the migration glitch. Id.
Cognizant opposes Plaintiffs’ motion for review, however, on the ground that Plaintiff could have raised similar challenges to documents withheld from prior productions of Ms. Israel's documents, and did not do so. Cognizant argues that this might have served as the basis for Judge Abrams’ denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel as untimely. There is no indication in Judge Abrams’ Order that this was his reason for denying the motion.[2] Nor does Cognizant's theory make sense—the fact that Plaintiffs did not seek to compel other purportedly privileged documents does not effectuate a waiver of their right to compel production of a wholly different set of purportedly privileged documents. Because the Motion to Compel did, in fact, seek documents related to the late-discovered migration issue, Judge Abrams’ Order denying the Motion to Compel as untimely was clearly erroneous. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is therefore remanded to Judge Abrams for a decision on the merits.
B. Motion to Quash
Plaintiffs also seek review of Judge Abrams’ order denying as untimely Cognizant's Motion to Quash a third-party subpoena served on Biddle, Cognizant's consultant. Plaintiffs assert that Biddle had initially complied with the subpoena, but stopped after Cognizant filed its Motion to Quash. According to Plaintiffs, therefore, Judge Abrams’ denial of the Motion without a decision on the merits has deprived Plaintiffs of the opportunity to obtain discovery from Biddle, since it is too late now for Plaintiffs to move to compel Biddle's compliance. Plaintiffs appear to believe that an order denying the Motion to Quash on the merits would persuade Biddle to resume its compliance with Plaintiffs’ subpoena.
What effect an order on the merits of the Motion to Quash might have on Biddle's compliance with Plaintiffs’ subpoena is not, however, the salient issue before the Court. Plaintiffs have not shown that Judge Abrams’ denial of Cognizant's Motion to Quash as untimely was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Indeed, Plaintiffs agree the motion was untimely, but argue that was Cognizant's fault. That is not a basis to reverse Judge Abrams’ decision on Cognizant's Motion to Quash.
IV.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Judge Abrams’ December 13 Order is AFFIRMED with respect to Cognizant's Motion to Quash, but REVERSED with respect to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is REMANDED to Judge Abrams for a decision on the merits. The January 28, 2022 hearing on this motion is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
Page references cited herein are to the page number inserted by the CM/ECF system.
Because Cognizant did not argue the Motion to Compel was untimely, the question of whether the documents were related to the late-discovered migration issue was addressed only in passing before Judge Abrams.