1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 , Case No. (MARx)
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. STANDING ORDER ON
DISCOVERY DISPUTES
13 ,
14 Defendant(s).
15
The following order shall apply in all cases where the assigned District Judge
16
has referred discovery matters to the undersigned Magistrate Judge, whether
17
automatically or by specific referral. Nothing in this order is intended to displace or
18
alter any contrary order by the assigned District Judge, nor does this order change the
19
parties’ obligations under the existing federal rules and local rules of the Court.
20
Failure to comply with any part of this order may result in discovery sanctions,
21
including payment by the non-compliant party and/or its counsel of the opposing
22
party’s reasonable attorney’s fees.
23
1. The parties shall be familiar with the December 2015 revisions to the Federal
24
Rules of Civil Procedure, including the advisory committee notes, that affect civil
25
discovery practice. The parties shall not cite to cases that rely on language, principles,
26
or holdings derived from the pre-December 2015 versions of the Federal Rules of
27
Civil Procedure that are inconsistent with the text and purposes of the December
28
2015 revisions.
29
30
2. Emails and written correspondence may supplement, but shall not replace,
1
required telephonic and/or in-person conferences of counsel to resolve discovery
2
disputes. Pro forma or perfunctory email exchanges shall not be considered adequate
3
pre-filing conferences of counsel.
4
3. If the parties have a dispute on the scope of discovery, they shall include in
5
their meet-and-confer discussions the relevance and proportionality factors set forth
6
in Rule 26(b)(1), as amended in December 2015. Relevance in discovery is broader
7
than how relevance is defined in Federal Rule of Evidence 401, but parties may no
8
longer assert relevant discovery includes any matter relating to “any issue that is or
9
may be in the case,” or that discovery is relevant so long as it relates to the subject
10
matter of the action. Relevance in discovery means it must relate to the legal elements
11
of the parties’ “claims or defenses,” and even then, relevant information may be
12
produced only if it is proportional to the needs of the case considering the
13
proportionality factors.
14
4. Parties responding to document requests shall not use boilerplate objections
15
that violate Rule 34(b)(2), as amended in December 2015. Nor shall responding
16
parties use the concept of “disproportionality” as a synonym for previous boilerplate
17
objections of irrelevance, overbreadth, undue burden, or the like. Discovery may be
18
proportional to the needs of a case even if producing it may be burdensome, time-
19
consuming, and costly; and conversely, discovery that is not unduly burdensome to
20
produce does not mean it is necessarily proportional to the needs of the case.
21
Conclusory objections based on alleged disproportionality, burden, cost, or
22
overbreadth without any basis in fact shall be summarily rejected and/or deemed
23
waived.
24
5. Parties shall not agree to or file pro forma discovery plans that do not
25
substantively and meaningfully discuss the topics laid out in Rule 26(f)(3). Issues,
26
subjects, or disputes that could have been raised in a substantive, meaningful
27 discovery plan, but are only raised for the first time in a motion to compel, may be
28 deemed waived or resolved against the non-compliant parties and/or their counsel.
29 2
30
6. Ex parte applications to shorten time for hearing on a motion to compel
1
because of an impending Discovery Cutoff date ordered by the assigned District
2
Judge are not permitted and shall be summarily rejected absent a showing of due
3
diligence and good cause why the disputed motion could not have been raised
4
significantly in advance of the Discovery Cutoff date. If no such diligence and cause
5
can be shown, the parties must seek and obtain relief from the District Judge’s
6
scheduling order first before filing a motion to compel.
7
7. In any discovery dispute about waiver of attorney-client privilege or work
8
product protection, especially with respect to electronically stored information, the
9
parties’ failure to have obtained a non-waiver agreement under Fed. R. Evid. 502(e)
10
or a non-waiver order under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) may be considered as a factor in
11
the court’s determination of the dispute.
12
8. Parties moving for sanctions based on failure to preserve electronically stored
13
information shall be familiar with and seek relief only as permitted by amended Rule
14
37(e). Sanctions cases decided before the December 2015 amendments to Rule 37(e)
15
should b used cautiously considering the changes to the rule.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
19
20 Dated:
HONORABLE MARGO A. ROCCONI
21 United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 3
30
