YoungevityInt'lCorp.v.Smith2017WL6541106(S.D.Cal.2017)

UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,S.D.California.

YOUNGEVITYINTERNATIONALCORP.,etal.,Plaintiffs,v.

TODDSMITH,etal.,Defendants.CaseNo.:16-cv-00704-BTM(JLB)

12/21/2017

ORDERGRANTINGDEFENDANTS'MOTIONTOCOMPELPROPERPRODUCTIONS[ECFNo.232]

*1BeforetheCourtisDefendantsandCounterclaimPlaintiffs'MotiontoCompelProperProductions.(ECFNo.232.)DefendantsandCounterclaimPlaintiffsWakaya,etal.(Wakaya)arguethatPlaintiffsandCounterclaimDefendantsYoungevityInternationalCorp.,etal.(Youngevity)failedtocomplywiththeirdiscoveryobligationswhentheyproduceddocumentswithoutanyreviewanddesignatedtheentiretyoftwoproductions,amountingtoapproximately4.2millionpages,asattorney'seyesonly,andentirelyfailedtoproduceanadditional700,000responsivedocuments.(Id.at3.)[1]WakayarequestsanorderrequiringYoungevityto:(1)makeaproperproductionandbearthecostsofthereproduction;(2)producetheir“hitlist”ofdocumentsresponsivetotheparties'proposedsearchtermsrunacrossYoungevity'sdata;and(3)paythecostsincurredbyWakayaasaresultofthismotionandthecostsassociatedwithreviewingYoungevity'spriorproductions.(Id.at7-8.)YoungevityarguesthatWakayaseekstoimproperlyshiftthecostsofreviewtoaparty-opponentandthatYoungevityproducedthedocumentsinthemannerthatWakayademanded.(ECFNo.240at3.)

I.FACTUALBACKGROUND

Youngevitydevelopsanddistributesproductsrelatingtonutrition,healthandwellness,weightloss,cosmetics,andgourmetcoffee,amongotherproducts,throughindependentdirect-sellersknownas“distributors.”(ECFNo.269at3-4.)DefendantWakayaisamulti-levelmarketingcompanythatalsosellsitsproductsthroughindependentdistributors.(ECFNo.83at43.)YoungevityfiledthislawsuitonMarch23,2016.(ECFNo.1.)Theoperativecomplaint,Youngevity'sFourthAmendedComplaint,wasfiledonNovember6,2017.(ECFNo.269.)YoungevityallegesbothfederalandstatelawclaimsagainstWakaya,arguingthatWakayawasformedbyformerYoungevitydistributorsforthepurposeofcompetingagainstYoungevityandhasdonesounlawfully.(Id.at5.)Wakaya'sFirstAmendedAnswerandCounterclaimtoYoungevity'sSecondAmendedComplaint,seekingdeclaratoryreliefandallegingstatelawcounterclaimsagainstYoungevity,wasfiledonFebruary23,2017.(ECFNo.83.)[2]

Theparties'currentdisputeinvolvesYoungevity'svoluminousdocumentproductions.WakayaarguesthatYoungevityfailedtocomplywithitsdiscoveryobligationsby:(1)refusingtoprovidethe“hitlist”ofsearchtermsrunacrossitsdata;(2)failingtoreviewanydocumentspriortoproduction,andthusproducingasubstantialamountofnon-responsiveandirrelevantdocuments;(3)warningthattheproductionmaycontainprivilegedinformationandputtingtheonusonWakayatoidentifyandreturnthem;(4)failingtoproduce700,000responsivedocumentsYoungevityadmitsareinitspossession;and(5)improperlymassdesignatingtheentiretyoftheproductionasattorney'seyesonly(AEO).(ECFNo.252at3-6.)

*2Ahistoryoftheparties'relevantdiscoverydisputesandmeetandconfereffortsissetforthbelow.

A.CommencementofDiscovery

AStipulatedProtectiveOrdergoverningthedisclosureofdocumentsproducedindiscoverywasenteredonApril5,2017.(ECFNo.103.)TheStipulatedProtectiveOrderprovidesthat“[a]nypartymaydesignateinformationas‘CONFIDENTIAL–FORCOUNSELONLY’onlyif,inthegoodfaithbeliefofsuchpartyanditscounsel,theinformationisamongthatconsideredtobemostsensitivebytheparty,includingbutnotlimitedtotradesecretorotherconfidentialresearch,development,financialorothercommercialinformation.”(Id.at3.)

WakayaissueditsdiscoveryrequeststoYoungevitybetweenApril6,2017andApril12,2017.(ECFNo.232

1of11

at3.)TherecordbeforetheCourtonthismotiondoesnotindicatewhenorifYoungevityserveditswrittenresponsesandobjectionstoWakaya'sdiscoveryrequests.ThepartiesbeganmeetingandconferringondocumentreviewproceduresandprotocolsfollowingserviceofWakaya'sdiscoveryrequestsinlateApril2017.(SeeECFNo.252-1at5-9.)

B.SearchTerms“HitList”

OnMay9,2017,WakayaemailedYoungevitytodiscusstheuseofsearchtermstoidentifyandcollectpotentiallyresponsiveelectronically-storedinformation(ESI)fromthesubstantialamountofESIbothpartiespossessed.(SeeECFNo.252-3at233-35.)Wakayaproposedathree-stepprocessbywhich:“(i)eachsideproposesalistofsearchtermsfortheirowndocuments;(ii)eachsideoffersanysupplementaltermstobeaddedtotheotherside'sproposedlist;and(iii)eachsidemayreviewthetotalnumberofresultsgeneratedbyeachterminthesupplementedlists(i.e.,a‘hitlist’fromourthird-partyvendors)andrequestthattheothersideomitanytermsappearingtogenerateadisproportionatenumberofresults.”(Id.at233.)OnMay10,2017,whileprovidingadatetoexchangesearchterms,Youngevitystatedthatthe“useofkeywordsassearchaidsmaynotbeusedtojustifynon-disclosureofresponsiveinformation.”(Id.at247.)OnMay15,2017,Youngevitystatedthat“[w]eareamenabletothethreestepprocessdescribedinyourMay9e-mail....”(Id.at254.)Laterthatday,thepartiesexchangedlistsofproposedsearchtermstoberunacrosstheirownESI.(ECFNos.240-3at144,252-3at265.)OnMay17,2017,thepartiesexchangedlistsofadditionalsearchtermsthateachsideproposedberunacrosstheopposingparty'sESI.(ECFNo.252-3at268,271.)

OnJune2,2017,WakayaprovidedYoungevitywithahitlistofthetotalnumberofresultsgeneratedbyrunningeachtermintheexpandedsearchtermlistacrossWakaya'sESI.(ECFNo.240-3at113.)OnJune4,2017,Youngevityrefusedtoproduceitshitlistinresponse,andinsteadprovidedWakayawithalistofsearchtermsitfoundproblematicandsuggestionstoomitorrevisetheseterms.(Id.at115-18.)WakayaobjectedtothisapproachandrequestedthatYoungevityprovideitshitlistfirst,aspreviouslyagreed.(Id.at119.)OnJune5,2017,YoungevityrespondedthatifWakayaprovideditwithalistofsearchtermsWakayafoundproblematicbynoonthenextday,YoungevitywouldprovideWakayawithitssearchtermshitlist.(ECFNo.252-3at331.)Wakayarespondedthatit“neveragreedtoanysuchmodificationtoourprocess”andstatedthatifYoungevitywasunwillingtoprovideWakayawithitshitlistreport,itshouldbepreparedtocontacttheCourtthenextdaywiththedispute.(Id.at338.)OnJune7,2017,YoungevityinformedWakayathatitsdiscoveryvendorwascurrentlyunabletoruntheproposedsearchtermsacrossallofitsdataandthatYoungevitywouldprovidethehitlistthefollowingweek.(Id.at349.)YoungevityagreedtoomitseveralsearchtermsfromthelistrunacrossWakaya'sESI,whichWakayahadchallengedasgeneratingadisproportionatenumberofhits,andproposedamodificationofonesearchterminsteadofomissionoftheterm.(Id.at350-51.)WakayarespondedthatinexchangeitwouldagreetoomitthesearchtermsYoungevityarguedwereresultinginadisproportionatenumberofhits,withtheexceptionofonesearchtermWakayarefusedtoomit,“particularlywithoutreviewingthenumberofresultsgenerated”bythesearchterm.(Id.at349.)

*3Youngevityneverproduceditshitlist.WakayanowseeksanordercompellingYoungevitytoproducethehitlist,inadditiontootherrelief.Youngevityopposesthismotiontocompelgenerally,butdoesnotspecificallyaddresstherequestthatitprovideitshitlistanddoesnotdisputeinitsoppositionthatithadagreedtodoso.

C.MassDesignationofDocumentsas“ForCounselOnly”

OnJuly21,2017,Youngevitymadeitsfirstlargedocumentproduction,consistingofapproximately1.9millionpages.(ECFNos.240-3at131,252-2at8.)Youngevitystatedthat“[t]obeabletotimelyproduceallofthesedocuments,Youngevityhasmarkedalldocumentsas‘Confidential—CounselEyesOnly.’Ifyouwishtode-designateanyproduceddocument,pleaseletusknowandwewillreconsidersuchdesignation.”(ECFNo.240-3at131.)WakayastatesthatitimmediatelyobjectedtothemassdesignationofdocumentsasAEOandheldameet-and-conferconferenceregardingtheproductionthesameday.(ECFNo.252-2at8-9.)WakayastatesthatonAugust1,2017,itproposedthattheproductionbetreatedasifdesignatedonly“Confidential,”insteadofAEO,andWakayawouldgiveYoungevitythreebusinessdays'noticeofitsintenttodiscloseanydocumentcontainingagreementswithnon-parties,detailedproductformulations,ordetailedgenealogicalinformation,andallowYoungevitytheopportunitytore-designatethosedocumentsasAEO.(Id.at9.)ThepartiescontinuedtomeetandconferbutwereultimatelyunabletoresolvetheissueandcontactedtheCourtonAugust15,2017.(ECFNos.157,252-2at10.)

OnAugust18,2017,thepartiesparticipatedinaninformaldiscoveryconferencewiththeCourt,whereinthepartiesdiscussedre-designationofYoungevity'sproductionas“Confidential”withtheunderstandingthat

2of11

certaincategoriesofdocumentswouldbemaintainedasAEO.(SeeECFNos.159,252-2at10.)ThepartiesagreedtomeetandconferonwhichcategoriesofdocumentswouldremaindesignatedasAEO.(ECFNo.252-2at10.)

WakayastatesthatonAugust22,2017,Youngevityproducedanadditional2.3millionpagesofdocumentsthatwerealsomassdesignatedAEO.(Id.at11.)OnAugust24,2017,Youngevityproposed24categoriesofdocumentstobemaintainedasAEO,apparentlyincluding“financialinformation,”“productinformation,”“shareholderinformation,”“complianceinformation,”and“anythingnotrelevanttothiscase,”amongothercategories.(SeeECFNos.240-3at135,252-2at11.)[3]WakayastatesthatitobjectedtothesecategoriesasvagueandambiguousonAugust28,2017.(ECFNo.252-2at11.)OnSeptember5,2017,Wakayaagainobjectedtothesecategoriesas“vagueandamorphous,”andstatedthatifYoungevitydidnotidentify“aworkablesetofcategories(narrowandwell-defined)andagreetore-designateitsproductionasCONFIDENTIALby5PMMountaintomorrow,Wakayawillmovetocompelandforsanctions.”(ECFNo.240-3at135.)OnSeptember12,2017,thepartiesplacedajointcalltotheCourtregardingtheirinabilitytocometoanagreementonthecategoriesofdocumentsthatwouldremaindesignatedasAEO.(ECFNo.252-2at12.)OnSeptember27,2017,thepartiesagaindiscussedthemassdesignationofdocumentsasAEOinaninformaldiscoveryconferencewiththeCourt.(Seeid.at13.)TheCourtsuggestedthatatechnology-assistedreview(TAR)maybethemostefficientwaytoresolvethemyriaddisputessurroundingYoungevity'sproductions.(Id.)Asdiscussedbelow,thepartiescontinuedtomeetandconferonthedesignationofdocumentsasAEOandraisedtheissuewiththeCourtafterfailingtocometoaresolution.

*4Youngevitydoesnotdisputethatitsproductions,totalingapproximately4.2millionpages,remaindesignatedasAEO.YoungevitydoesnotclaimthatthedocumentsareallproperlydesignatedAEO,butassertsthatthismassdesignationwastheonlywaytotimelymeetitsproductionobligationswhenitproduceddocumentsonJuly21,2017andAugust22,2017.(ECFNo.240at6.)Itoffersnoexplanationastowhyithasnotusedtheinterveningfivemonthstoconductareviewandproperlydesignatethedocuments,excepttosay,“Youngevitybelievesthatthepartiesreachedanagreementonde-designationofYoungevity'sproductionwhichwilloccurupontheresolutionofthemattersunderlyingthisbriefing.”(Id.at11.)Whythatde-designationisbeingheldupwhilethismotionispendingisnotevident.

D.DocumentsProducedWithoutDocument-by-DocumentReview

WakayaarguesthatYoungevityfailedtoreviewanydocumentspriortoproductionandinsteadprovidedWakayawitha“documentdump”containingmassesofirrelevantdocuments,includingprivilegedinformation,andmissing“critical”documents.(ECFNo.232at3,8.)Youngevity'sproductionscontaindocumentssuchasBusinessWirenewsemails,emailsremindingemployeestocleanouttheofficerefrigerator,EBaytransactionemails,UPStrackingemails,emailsfromStubHub,andemployeefileandbenefitsinformation.(ECFNo.252-3at359-442.)YoungevityarguesthatitsimplyprovidedthedocumentsWakayarequestedinthemannerthatWakayainstructed.(ECFNo.260at3.)

WhileprovidingitsJuly21,2017documentproduction,YoungevitycommunicatedtoWakayathat“giventhesizeofthisproductionandthelimiteddiscoverytimetable,wemayhaveaccidentallyproducedmaterialprotectedbyaprivilegesuchastheattorneyclientand/orattorneyworkproductprivileges,butnotethatsuchinadvertentproductiondoesnotwaiveanyprivilege.”(ECFNo.240-3at131.)WakayastatesthatonAugust22,2017,Youngevityprovideditssecondlargedocumentproductionconsistingof2.3millionpages.(ECFNo.252-2at11.)OnSeptember5,2017,WakayainformedYoungevitythat“[i]thasbecomeclearthatYoungevityengagedinnopre-productionreviewofitsdocumentsandhasinsteadengagedina‘documentdump.’”(ECFNo.240-3at135.)WakayademandedthatYoungevityreviewitsproductionandremoveirrelevantandnon-responsivedocuments.(Id.)

Asmentionedabove,onSeptember12,2017,thepartiesplacedajointcalltotheCourtrequestinganinformaldiscoveryconferenceregardingthenumberofnon-responsiveandirrelevantdocumentsinYoungevity'sproduction.(SeeECFNos.205,252-2at4.)WakayastatesthatonSeptember20,2017,Youngevitycommunicatedforthefirsttimethatitdidnotengageinapre-productionreviewofdocuments.(ECFNo.252-2at13.)

Asdiscussedabove,onSeptember27,2017,thepartiesparticipatedinaninformaldiscoveryconferencewiththeCourtregardingYoungevity'sdocumentproductionsinwhichtheCourtsuggestedthatconductingaTARofYoungevity'sproductionsmightbeanefficientwaytoresolvetheissues.(Id.)OnOctober5,2017,thepartiesparticipatedinanotherinformaldiscoveryconferencewiththeCourtbecausetheywereunabletoresolvetheirdisputesrelatingtotheTARprocessandthepaymentofcostsassociatedwithTAR.(SeeECFNo.215.)TheCourtsuggestedthatcounselmeetandconferagainwithbothparties'discoveryvendors

3of11

participating.WakayastatesthatonOctober6,2017,thepartiesparticipatedinajointcallwiththeirdiscoveryvendorstodiscusstheTARprocess.(ECFNo.252-2at14.)ThepartiescouldnotagreeonwhowouldbearthecostsoftheTARprocess.YoungevitystatesthatitofferedtopayhalfthecostsassociatedwiththeTARprocess,butWakayawouldnotagreethatTARalonewouldresultinadocumentproductionthatsatisfiedYoungevity'sdiscoveryobligations.(ECFNo.240-1at4.)WakayaarguedthatitshouldnothavebearthecostsoffixingYoungevity'simproperproductions.(ECFNo.252-3at14.)OnOctober9,2017,thepartiesleftajointvoicemailwiththeCourtstatingthattheyhadreachedapartialagreementtoconductaTARofYoungevity'sproduction,butcouldnotresolvetheissueofwhichpartywouldbeartheTARcosts.(Id.;ECFNo.222.)Inresponsetotheparties'jointvoicemail,theCourtissuedabriefingschedulefortheinstantmotion.(ECFNo.222.)

E.700,000DocumentsNotYetProduced

*5ThediscoveryperiodclosedonSeptember22,2017.(ECFNo.193.)[4]SometimebetweenSeptember25,2017andOctober2,2017,[5]YoungevityinformedWakayathatithadinadvertentlyfailedtoproduceanadditional700,000documentsduetoatechnicalerrorbyitsdiscoveryvendor.(ECFNos.260-1at4,252-3at13.)Youngevitystatesthatitofferedtoproducethesedocuments“aspreviouslyproduceddocuments,”presumablywithoutreviewanddesignatedintotoasAEO,butWakayadeclinedtheoffer.(ECFNo.260at7.)Youngevityhasnotproducedthesedocumentsandstatesthattheywillbeproduced“aftertheissuesinthisMotionareresolved.”(Id.)Again,whytheproductionoftheseconcededlybelatedandresponsivedocumentsisbeingheldinabeyancewhilethismotionispendingisnotevidenttotheCourt.

II.LEGALSTANDARDS

WakayaseeksanorderunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure26(g)orRule37requiringYoungevitytoremedywhatitassertsisanimproperproductionandpaythecostsincurredbyWakayaasaresultofthismotionandthecostsassociatedwithreviewingYoungevity'spriorproductions.(ECFNo.232at7-8.)

A.Rule26(g)

FederalRuleofCivilProcedure26(g)requiresanattorneyorpartytosignandcertify“thattothebestoftheperson'sknowledge,information,andbeliefformedafterareasonableinquiry”everydiscoveryresponseis—

(i)consistentwiththeserulesandwarrantedbyexistinglaworbyanonfrivolous

argumentforextending,modifying,orreversingexistinglaw,orforestablishingnewlaw;

(ii)notinterposedforanyimproperpurpose,suchastoharass,causeunnecessarydelay,orneedlesslyincreasethecostoflitigation;and

(iii)neitherunreasonablenorundulyburdensomeorexpensive,consideringtheneedsofthecase,priordiscoveryinthecase,theamountincontroversy,andtheimportanceoftheissuesatstakeintheaction.

Fed.R.Civ.P.26(g)(1).TheCourt,“onmotionoronitsown,mustimposeanappropriatesanctiononthesigner,thepartyonwhosebehalfthesignerwasacting,orboth,”whenacertificationviolatesRule26(g)(1)withoutsubstantialjustification.Fed.R.Civ.P.26(g)(3).

Rule26(g)“imposesanaffirmativedutytoengageinpretrialdiscoveryinaresponsiblemannerthatisconsistentwiththespiritandpurposesofRules26through37.”U.S.exrel.O'Connellv.ChapmanUniv.,245F.R.D.646,651(C.D.Cal.2007)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.26(g)advisorycommittee'snoteto1983amendment).Fulfillingthespiritandpurposesofthediscoveryrules“requirescooperationratherthancontrariety,communicationratherthanconfrontation.”Manciav.MayflowerTextileServs.Co.,253F.R.D.354,357(D.Md.2008).Theadvisorycommittee'snotetothe1983amendmentstatesthatRule26(g)“providesadeterrenttobothexcessivediscoveryandevasionbyimposingacertificationrequirementthatobligeseachattorneytostopandthinkaboutthelegitimacyofadiscoveryrequest,aresponsethereto,oranobjection.”Fed.R.Civ.P.26(g)advisorycommittee'snoteto1983amendment.Thedutytomakea“reasonableinquiry”is“amatterforthecourttodecideonthetotalityofthecircumstances”usinganobjectivestandard.Id.

B.Rule37(a)

FederalRuleofCivilProcedure37(a)providesformotionstocompelwhenapartyfailstoappropriatelyproducerequesteddiscovery.Specifically,underRule37,“onamotiontootherparties...,apartymaymoveforanordercompellingdisclosureordiscovery.”

*6TheFederalRulesofCivilProceduregenerallyallowforbroaddiscovery,authorizingthepartiestoobtain4of11

discoveryregarding“anynonprivilegedmatterthatisrelevanttoanyparty'sclaimordefenseandproportionaltotheneedsofthecase.”Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(1).Thepartyseekingtocompeldiscoveryhastheburdenofshowingthatthediscoverysoughtisrelevant.Arosv.Fansler,548Fed.App'x.500,501(9thCir.2013)(citingHallettv.Morgan,296F.3d732,751(9thCir.2002) );La.Pac.Corp.v.MoneyMkt.1InstitutionalInv.Dealer,No.09cv03529,2012WL5519199,at*3(N.D.Cal.Nov.14,2012).Theopposingpartyis“requiredtocarryaheavyburdenofshowingwhydiscoverywasdenied.”Blankenshipv.HearstCorp.,519F.2d418,429(9thCir.1975);McEwanv.OSPGrp.,L.P.,No.14cv2823-BEN(WVG),2016WL1241530,at*4(S.D.Cal.Mar.30,2016)(same).

Ifamotiontocompelisgranted,acourt“must,aftergivinganopportunitytobeheard,requirethepartyordeponentwhoseconductnecessitatedthemotion,thepartyorattorneyadvisingthatconduct,orbothtopaythemovant'sreasonableexpensesincurredinmakingthemotion,includingattorney'sfees”unless,interalia,thenondisclosure“wassubstantiallyjustified”or“othercircumstancesmakeanawardofexpensesunjust.”(Fed.R.Civ.P.37(a)(5)(A)).

C.Rule37(b)(2)(A)

Rule37(b)(2)(A)providesthatifaparty“failstoobeyanordertoprovideorpermitdiscovery,includinganorderunderRule26(f),35,or37(a),thecourtwheretheactionispendingmayissuefurtherjustorders.”Fed.R.Civ.P.37(b)(2)(A).“Thedefinitionof‘order’inRule37(b)hasbeenreadbroadly.ButRule37(b)(2)'srequirementthattherebesomeformofcourtorderthathasbeendisobeyedhasnotbeenreadoutofexistence;Rule37(b)(2)hasneverbeenreadtoauthorizesanctionsformoregeneraldiscoveryabuse.”UnigardSec.Ins.Co.v.LakewoodEng'g&Mfg.Corp.,982F.2d363,368(9thCir.1992) (internalcitationsomitted).SeealsoBairv.CaliforniaStateDep'tofTransp.,867F.Supp.2d1058,1068(N.D.Cal.2012).Therule“grantscourtstheauthoritytoimposesanctionswhereapartyhasviolatedaprotectiveorderissuedpursuanttoRule26(f).”[6]O'Connorv.UberTechs.,Inc.,No.13-CV-03826-EMC,2017WL3782101,at*4(N.D.Cal.Aug.31,2017)(quotingLifeTech.Corp.v.BiosearchTech.,Inc.,No.C-12-00852WHA(JCS),2012WL1600393,at*8(N.D.Cal.May7,2012));AvagoTechs.,Inc.v.IPtronicsInc.,No.5:10-CV-02863-EJD,2015WL3640626,at*3(N.D.Cal.June11,2015).SeealsoFalstaffBrewingCorp.v.MillerBrewingCo.,702F.2d770,784(9thCir.1983)(affirmingassessmentofattorney'sfeesassanctionforviolationofstipulatedprotectiveorder).

Rule37(b)(2)(C)providesthat“[i]nsteadoforinadditiontotheordersabove,thecourtmustorderthedisobedientparty,theattorneyadvisingthatparty,orbothtopaythereasonableexpenses,includingattorney'sfees,causedbythefailureunlessthefailurewassubstantiallyjustifiedorothercircumstancesmakeanawardofexpensesunjust.”Fed.R.Civ.P.37(b)(2)(C).

D.InherentPower

*7Districtcourtsmayimposesanctionsaspartoftheirinherentpower“tomanagetheirownaffairssoastoachievetheorderlyandexpeditiousdispositionofcases.”Chambersv.NASCO,Inc.,501U.S.32,43(1991).Indeed,districtcourtscanimposesanctionsfora“fullrangeoflitigationabuses.”Id.at55.Afindingofbadfaithisusuallyrequiredbeforeacourtcanentersanctionspursuanttoitsinherentauthority.Lahiriv.UniversalMusicandVideoDistributionCorp.,606F.3d1216,1219(9thCir.2010)(citingB.K.B.v.MauiPoliceDep't,276F.3d1091,1107-08(9thCir.2002);Finkv.Gomez,239F.3d989,993-94(9thCir.2001)).However,“a‘willful’violationofacourtorderdoesnotrequireproofofmentalintentsuchasbadfaithoranimpropermotive,butrather,itisenoughthatapartyacteddeliberately.”Evonv.LawOfficesofSidneyMickell,688F.3d1015,1035(9thCir.2012)(holdingthatcounselactedwillfullywhenheknowinglyfiledclasscertificationmotionwithoutredactingconfidentialinformationinviolationofprotectiveorder).

III.ANALYSIS

Asnotedabove,WakayarequestsanorderrequiringYoungevityto:(1)makeaproperproductionandbearthecostsofthereproduction,(2)producetheir“hitlist”ofdocumentsresponsivetotheparties'agreeduponlistofsearchtermsrunacrossYoungevity'sdata,and(3)paythecostsincurredbyWakayaasaresultofthismotionandthecostsassociatedwithreviewingYoungevity'spriorproductionspursuanttoRules26(g)and37.(ECFNo.232at7-8.)

A.TimelinessofWakaya'sMotiontoCompel

Asaninitialmatter,YoungevitychallengesWakaya'smotiontocompelasuntimelyunderJudgeBurkhardt'sCivilChamberRules(CivilChambersRules).Youngevityarguesthatthepartiesdidnotbeginthemeetandconferprocessoverthealleged“documentdump”untiloversixweeksafterYoungevity'sinitialdocument

5of11

production.(ECFNo.240at8.)YoungevityalsoarguesthatWakayafailedtobringthedisputetotheattentionoftheCourtuntiloversevenweeksafterYoungevity'sinitialproduction.(Id.)

TheCivilChambersRulesprovidethatabsentleaveofcourt,counselshallcomplywiththeirmeetandconferrequirementsundertheLocalRules“within14daysoftheeventgivingrisetothedispute.”[7]CivilChambersRules,SectionIV.A.Ifthepartiesareunabletoconcludethemeetandconferprocessinatimelymannertheymayfileajointmotionrequestinganextensionofthemeetandconferdeadline.Id.TheCivilChambersRulesalsoprovidethatanydiscoverydisputesmustbebroughttotheattentionofthecourt“nolaterthan30calendardaysafterthedateuponwhichtheeventgivingrisetothedisputeoccurred.”Id.atSectionIV.B.Forwrittendiscovery,the“eventgivingrisetothedispute”isdefinedas“thedateoftheserviceoftheresponse,orintheabsenceofaresponse,thedateuponwhichatimelyresponsewasdue.”Id.atSectionIV.F.TheSchedulingOrderinthiscasefurtherprovidesthat“[a]lldiscoverymotionsmustbefiledwithin30daysoftheserviceofanobjection,answer,orresponsewhichbecomesthesubjectofdispute,orthepassageofadiscoveryduedatewithoutresponseorproduction,andonlyaftercounselhavemetandconferredtoresolvethedisputeandrequestedaninformalteleconferencewiththeCourt.”(ECFNo.132)(emphasisinoriginal.)

YoungevityarguesthatWakayashouldhavebeenawarethatYoungevitydidnotperformadocument-by-documentreviewwhenitinformedWakayaonJuly21,2017thatitsentireproductionwasmarkedasAEO.(ECFNo.240at6.)YoungevityarguesthatWakayanonethelessfailedtomeetandconferontheissueuntilSeptember5,2017,anddidnotraisetheissuewiththeCourtuntilsevenweeksafterYoungevity'sinitialproduction.(Id.at8.)Wakayaarguesthatit“repeatedlyurgedPlaintiffstoremedyerrors,whichwasmetwithstonewalling,”andthatthe30-daydeadlineshouldnotbestrictlyenforcedasit“wouldpunishDefendants'attemptstoworkprofessionallyandingoodfaithtoresolveissueswithoutrunningtotheCourtatthefirstpushback.”(ECFNo.252at6.)

*8Youngevity'sinitialproductionoccurredonJuly21,2017.(ECFNos.240-3at131,252-2at8.)ThepartiesfirstbroughttheissueofYoungevity'smassdesignationofdocumentsasAEOtotheCourt'sattentiononAugust15,2017,aftermeetingandconferringontheissue.(SeeECFNo.157.)Accordingly,thisdisputewasbroughtwithintheCourt's30-daydeadline.CivilChambersRules,SectionIV.B.However,WakayadidnotbringtheissueofYoungevity'sfailuretoreviewitsdocumentproductiontotheCourt'sattentionuntilSeptember12,2017.(SeeECFNos.205,252-2at4.)Wakayastatesthatitbeganto“suspect”thatYoungevity'sproductionsconstituteda“documentdump”aroundAugust28,2017.(ECFNo.252-2at11.)ButWakayawasinpossessionofYoungevity'sJuly21,2017production,whichwasmassdesignatedasAEO,foroversevenweeksbeforeitbroughttheissuetotheCourt.UndertheCourt'sCivilChambersRules,WakayashouldhavebroughtthedisputeregardingYoungevity'sfailuretoconductadocument-by-documentreviewofitsproductionwithin30daysofYoungevity'sproduction.CivilChambersRules,SectionIV.B.Alternatively,Wakayacouldhaverequestedanextensionofthediscoverydisputedeadlines.Seeid.atSectionIV.A.Despitethisfailure,theCourtconsidersthemeritsofallaspectsofthismotion,inpartbecausethemeritsoftheuntimelydiscoveryissuesarecloselyrelatedtothosethataretimely.

B.Rule26(g)

WakayaarguesthatYoungevity'sresponsestoitsrequestsforproductionviolateRule26(g)ascounselfailedtoconductareasonableinquirypriortocertifyingthatYoungevity'sresponseswerenotinterposedforanimproperpurposenorunreasonableorundulyburdensomeorexpensive.(ECFNo.232at8-9.)WakayaarguesthatYoungevityimpermissiblycertifieditsdiscoveryresponsesbecauseitsproductionsamountedtoa“documentdump”intendedtocauseunnecessarydelayandneedlesslyincreasethecostoflitigation.(Id.at8.)

WakayafailstoestablishthatYoungevityviolatedRule26(g).WakayadoesnotspecificallyclaimthatcertificatessignedbyYoungevityoritscounselviolateRule26(g).Neitherparty,despitefilingover1,600pagesofbriefingandexhibitsforthismotion,providedtheCourtwithYoungevity'swrittendiscoveryresponsesandcertification.TheCourtdeclinestofindthatYoungevityimproperlycertifieditsdiscoveryresponseswhentherecordbeforeitdoesnotindicatethecontentofYoungevity'swrittenresponses,itscertification,oradeclarationstatingthatYoungevityinfactcertifieditsresponses.SeeCherringtonAsiaLtd.v.A&LUnderground,Inc.,263F.R.D.653,658(D.Kan.2010)(decliningtoimposesanctionsunderRule26(g)whenplaintiffsdonotspecificallyclaimthatcertificatessignedbydefendant'scounselviolatedtheprovisionsofRule26(g)(1)).Accordingly,WakayaisnotentitledtoreliefunderRule26(g).

C.Rule37(a)

1.Productionof4.2MillionPages

6of11

Asnotedabove,Wakayaarguesthatproductionof4.2millionpagesmassdesignatedasAEOwithoutapre-productionreviewviolatesYoungevity'sdiscoveryobligationsandcaused,andcontinuestocause,Wakayaprejudiceasitisunabletoproperlypreparefordepositions,motionpractice,andtrial.(ECFNo.232at6,7,10.)Youngevityadmitsthatitproduceddocumentswithoutconductingadocument-by-documentreview.(ECFNo.240at11.)Youngevityarguesthatitsproductionwasnonethelessproperbecause(1)thedocumentswereproducedexactlyasWakayarequested(Id.at8),and(2)everydocumentisresponsivetoWakaya'srequestsforproductionbecauseeachdocumenthitsonatleastoneoftheagreed-uponsearchterms.(ECFNo.260at5.)YoungevitycharacterizesitsmassiveproductionsastheresultofWakaya'sfailuretonarrowitssearchtermsoradoptYoungevity'sproposedmodifications.(Id.)[8]

*9Youngevity'sargumentsfailfortworeasons.First,theCourtfindsthatthedocumentswerenotproducedasWakayarequested.Youngevityarguesthat“thevery‘sea’ofirrelevantdocumentsWakayacomplainsofisentirelyofWakaya'sownmaking”becauseWakayarefusedtonarrowitssearchtermsorrequestsforproduction.(ECFNo.260at3.)Youngevityarguesthat“nearlyall,ifnotall”ofthedocumentsinitsproductionareresponsivetoWakaya'sbroadrequestsforproduction.(ECFNo.240at7.)[9]TheCourtagreesthatanumberofWakaya'srequestsforproductionappeartobeoverlybroadinsubjectmatterorunboundedbyanytimeperiod,likelycontributingtothemassivesizeofYoungevity'sdocumentproductions.(See,e.g.,ECFNo.240-3at14(“PleaseproduceallDocumentsorCommunicationsrelatedtoanyDefendantorCounterclaimPlaintifffromJanuary1,2015,tothepresent.”);id.at16(“PleaseproduceallDocumentsorCommunicationsshowingtheamountofrevenueearnedbyYoungevityfromsalestopersonsorentitiesthatareYoungevityDistributors.”).)Wakaya'srequestsareverybroad,andwouldnodoubtresultintheproductionofahugenumberofresponsivedocumentsinanyevent,butWakayahasestablishedthatYoungevity'sproductionimproperlyexceededWakaya'srequests.

BesidesestablishingthatYoungevity'sproductionexceededWakaya'srequests,therecordindicatesthatYoungevitydidnotproducedocumentsfollowingtheprotocoltowhichthepartiesagreed.ThepartiesnegotiatedanESIsearchtermprotocolwhereinthepartieswouldprovidesearchtermsfortheirownESItotheotherside;thenthepartieswouldrespondtothelisttheyreceivedwithanyadditionalproposedsearchtermsfortheopposingparty'sESI;theneachsidewouldprovidetheotherwithahitlistofsearchtermresults,sotheothersidecouldconsidernarrowingtheproposedsearchtermsbaseduponthehitlistnumbers.(ECFNo.252-3at233.)YoungevityfailedtoproduceitshitlisttoWakaya,andinsteadproducedeverydocumentthathituponanyproposedsearchterm.(ECFNo.240-3at115-18.)HadYoungevityprovideditshitlisttoWakayaasagreedandrepeatedlyrequested,Wakayamighthaveproposedamodificationtothesearchtermsthatgenerateddisproportionateresults,thuspotentiallysubstantiallyreducingthenumberofdocumentsrequiringfurtherreviewandultimateproduction.YoungevityarguesthatWakayarefusedtoacceptYoungevity'sproposedsearchtermmodifications,ballooningthesizeofYoungevity'sproduction.(ECFNo.260at6.)Therecordreflectstheopposite.Youngevityrequestedalimitednumberofmodificationstothesearchterms,almostallofwhichWakayaagreedto,withtheexceptionofonetermthatWakayastateditcouldnotagreetoomit“particularlywithoutreviewingthenumberofresultsgenerated.”(ECFNo.252-3at349.)[10]

*10Inaddition,thepartiesnegotiatedastipulatedprotectiveorder,whichprovidesthatonlythe“mostsensitive”informationshouldbedesignatedasAEO.(ECFNo.103at3.)Inspiteoftheparties'negotiationsandtheCourt'ssubsequentorderenteringtheStipulatedProtectiveOrder,YoungevitydesignatedeverydocumentinitsJuly21,2017productionasAEO.OnAugust22,2017,afterparticipatinginadiscoveryconferencewiththeCourtafewdayspriorregardingre-designationoftheJuly21,2017productionfromAEOto“Confidential,”Youngevityproducedanadditionalapproximately2.3millionpagesmassdesignatedasAEO.(ECFNo.252-2at11.)Wakayapromptlyobjectedtoeachoftheseactions.ItisnotdisputedthatYoungevityfailedtoconductanyreviewofitsdocumentspriortoproductionandmassdesignatedeverydocumentasAEO,evenafterdiscussingtheimproprietyofsuchadesignationwiththeCourtdaysearlier.

Second,Youngevityconflatesahitontheparties'proposedsearchtermswithresponsiveness.[11]Thetwoarenotsynonymous.Youngevityadmitsthatithasanobligationtoproduceresponsivedocuments.(ECFNo.260at3-4.)Youngevityarguesthatbecauseeachdocumenthitonasearchterm,“thedocumentsYoungevityproducedarenecessarilyresponsivetoWakaya'sRequests.”(ECFNo.240at9.)SearchtermsareanimportanttoolpartiesmayusetoidentifypotentiallyresponsivedocumentsincasesinvolvingsubstantialamountsofESI.Searchtermsdonot,however,replaceaparty'srequestsforproduction.SeeInreLithiumIonBatteriesAntitrustLitig.,No.13MD02420YGR(DMR),2015WL833681,at*3(N.D.Cal.Feb.24,2015)(notingthat“aproblemwithkeywords‘isthattheyoftenareoverinclusive,thatis,theyfindresponsivedocumentsbutalsolargenumbersofirrelevantdocuments'”)(quotingMoorev.PublicisGroupe,287F.R.D.182,191

7of11

(S.D.N.Y.2012)).UPStrackingemailsandnoticesthatemployeesmustcleanouttherefrigeratorarenotresponsivetoWakaya'srequestsforproductionsolelybecausetheyhitonasearchtermtheparties'agreedupon.(SeeECFNo.252-3at359-442.)

TheCourtispersuadedthatrunningproposedsearchtermsacrossYoungevity'sESI,refusingtohonoranegotiatedagreementtoprovideahitlistwhichWakayawastousetonarrowitsrequestedsearchterms,andthenproducingalldocumentshituponwithoutreviewingasingledocumentpriortoproductionorengaginginanyotherqualitycontrolmeasures,doesnotsatisfyYoungevity'sdiscoveryobligations.Further,asisdiscussedbelow,massdesignationofeverydocumentinbothproductionsasAEOclearlyviolatestheStipulatedProtectiveOrderinthiscase.Youngevitymaynotfrustratethespiritofthediscoveryrulesbyproducingafloodofdocumentsitneverreviewed,designateallthedocumentsasAEOwithoutregardtowhethertheymeetthestandardforsuchadesignation,andthusburyresponsivedocumentsamongmillionsofproducedpages.SeeQueensridgeTowers,LLCv.AllianzGlob.RisksUSIns.Co.,No.2:13-CV-00197-JCM,2014WL496952,at*6-7(D.Nev.Feb.4,2014)(orderingplaintifftosupplementitsdiscoveryresponsesbyspecifyingwhichdocumentsareresponsivetoeachofdefendant'sdiscoveryrequestswhenplaintiffrespondedtorequestsforproductionandinterrogatoriesbystatingthattheanswersaresomewhereamongthemillionsofpagesproduced).Youngevity'sproductionsweresuchamystery,eventoitself,thatitnotonlydesignatedtheentiretyofbothproductionsasAEO,butnotifiedWakayathattheproductionsmightcontainprivilegeddocuments.Accordingly,Wakaya'srequesttocompelproperproductionsisgranted,asoutlinedbelow.SeeinfraSectionIV.

2.FailuretoProduce700,000Documents

*11Youngevityfailedtoproduce700,000documentspriortothediscoverycutoffand,asfarastheCourtisaware,hasnotproducedthedocumentstothisday.Youngevitystatesthatitofferedtoproducethesedocuments“aspreviouslyproduceddocuments,”presumablywithoutreviewanddesignatedAEO,butWakayadeclinedtheoffer.(ECFNo.260at5.)Youngevityidentifiedthesedocumentsasresponsivebutstatesthatitwillproducethesedocumentsaftertheissuesintheinstantmotionareresolved.(Id.)Thispositionisunsupportable.Wakaya'srequesttocompelthesedocumentspursuanttoRule37(a)isgranted,asoutlinedbelow.SeeinfraSectionIV.

D.Rule37(b)(2)(A)

WakayaarguesthattheCourtshouldgrantWakaya'srequestedreliefunderRule37(b)(2)(A)astheCourt“mayissuefurtherjustorders”when“aparty...failstoobeyanordertoprovideorpermitdiscovery.”[12](ECFNo.232at11.)Rule37(b)(2)(A)doesnot“authorizesanctionsformoregeneraldiscoveryabuse,”butinsteadrequiresthatapartydisobeyanordertoprovideorpermitdiscovery.Bair,867F.Supp.2dat1068.WakayadoesnotindicatewhichorderwasviolatedbythelitanyofdiscoveryabusesitallegesagainstYoungevity.(SeeECFNos.232,252.)

Youngevity'smassdesignationofmillionsofpagesofdocumentsasAEOwithoutreviewviolatestheStipulatedProtectiveOrderenteredbythisCourt.(ECFNo.103.)TheStipulatedProtectiveOrderprovidesthata“partymaydesignateinformationas‘CONFIDENTIAL–FORCOUNSELONLY’onlyif,inthegoodfaithbeliefofsuchpartyanditscounsel,theinformationisamongthatconsideredtobemostsensitivebytheparty,includingbutnotlimitedtotradesecretorotherconfidentialresearch,development,financialorothercommercialinformation.”(Id.at3.)Youngevityadmitsthatitdidnotconductadocument-by-documentreview(ECFNo.240at11),butinstead“[t]obeabletotimelyproduceallofthesedocuments,”designatedeverydocumentinits4.2millionpageproductionsasAEO.(ECFNo.240-3at131.)Youngevitycannothaveagoodfaithbeliefthateverydocumentinits4.2millionpageproductionsshouldbedesignatedasAEOifithasnotreviewedanyofthedocuments.Furthermore,Youngevityhasapparentlynotusedtheinterveningfivemonthstomitigatethisviolationbyconductingthenecessaryreviewandrevisingitsimproperdesignation.Youngevity'smassdesignationof4.2millionpagesofdocumentsasAEOwithoutreviewconstitutesawillfulviolationofacourtorder.Accordingly,theCourtmayissuejustorderspursuanttoRule37(b)(2)(A)anditsinherentauthority.SeeO'Connor,No.13-CV-03826-EMC,2017WL3782101,at*4;Evon,688F.3dat1035.Asoutlinedbelow,YoungevityisorderedtodesignatealldocumentsintheJuly21,2017andAugust22,2017productions,aswellasthe700,000to-be-produced-documents,withtheappropriatedesignationundertheStipulatedProtectiveOrder.SeeinfraSectionIV.

E.ReasonableCostsandFeesAssociatedwithWakaya'sMotionCompel

Wakayarequestsreasonablecostsandattorney'sfeesassociatedwiththemakingofitsmotiontocompel.(ECFNo.232at8.)Rule37(a)(5)(A)providesthatifamotiontocompelisgranted,thecourt“must,after

8of11

givinganopportunitytobeheard,requirethepartyordeponentwhoseconductnecessitatedthemotion...topaythemovant'sreasonableexpensesincurredinmakingthemotion,includingattorney'sfees.”YoungevityshallreimburseWakayaforthereasonableexpensesWakayaincurredinmakingthismotion,includingattorney'sfees.

IV.Relief

*12ItisherebyorderedthatYoungevitysatisfyitsdiscoveryobligationswithrespecttotheJuly21,2017andAugust22,2017productionsandtheproductionofthe700,000yet-to-be-produceddocuments.AtYoungevity'soption,itcaneither:

1)ByDecember26,2017,provideitshitlisttoWakaya;byJanuary5,2018,concludethemeetandconferprocessastomutuallyacceptablesearchtermsbaseduponthehitlistresults;byJanuary12,2018,runtheagreeduponsearchtermsacrossYoungevity'sdata;byFebruary15,2018,screentheresultingdocumentsforresponsivenessandprivilege;andbyFebruary16,2018,produceresponsive,non-privilegeddocumentswithonlyappropriatedesignationsof“confidential”and“AEO”(saidproductiontoincludethatsubsetofthenot-previously-produced700,000documentsthatareresponsiveandnon-privileged);or

2)ByDecember26,2017,providethenot-previously-produced700,000documentstoWakayawithoutfurtherreview;paythereasonablecostsforWakayatoconductaTARofthe700,000documentsandtheJuly21,2017andAugust22,2017productionsforresponsiveness;byJanuary24,2018,designateonlythosequalifyingdocumentsas“confidential”or“AEO”;bythatdate,anydocumentsnotdesignatedincompliancewiththisOrderwillbedeemedde-designated.

Additionally,Youngevityshallpayforthereasonableexpenses,includingattorney'sfees,ofbringingthismotion.Thepartiesshallfollowtheprocedureoutlinedbelowtodeterminetheamountofreasonableexpenses.

Further,Youngevityshallpayforthereasonableexpenses,includingattorney'sfees,WakayaincurredasaresultofYoungevity'sfailuretoabidebytheStipulatedProtectiveOrder.Wakayaisentitledtothereasonableexpensesassociatedwithitseffortstore-designatedocumentsfromYoungevity'sJuly21,2017andAugust22,2017productions.ThisincludescostsrelatingtonegotiationswithYoungevitytore-designatedocumentsandparticipationindiscoveryconferenceswiththeCourtregardingthisissue.WakayaisnotentitledtothecostsitincurredinreviewingYoungevity'sproductionsforothermatters,suchasdepositionortrialpreparation.Thepartiesshallfollowtheprocedureoutlinedbelowtodeterminetheamountofreasonableexpenses.

OnorbeforeJanuary19,2018,WakayashallprovideYoungevitywithadetailedfeeandcostinvoice(s)supportingtheamountofreasonableattorneys'feesandcostsincurredbyWakaya.Thepartiesshallpromptlyandthoroughly,andbynolaterthanFebruary2,2018,meetandconferoveranydisputedfeesandcostsincurredbyWakaya.Ifthepartiesareabletoresolveanydisputeswithrespecttotheamountofreasonableattorneys'feesandcosts,YoungevityistopaythatamountnolaterthanFebruary12,2018.Ifthepartiesareunabletoresolvetheirdispute(s)throughthemeetandconferprocess,thenWakayaisgrantedleavetofile,onorbeforeFebruary12,2018,anexpartemotionsupportedbysufficientevidenceinsupportoftheamountofreasonablefeesandcostsowedbyYoungevitytoWakayainconnectionwiththismotionanditseffortstore-designateYoungevity'sproductions.[13]ThedeadlineforYoungevitytofileanoppositiontoWakaya'smotionforfeesandcosts,ifany,shallbeFebruary26,2018.

V.CONCLUSION

*13ForthereasonssetforthaboveWakaya'smotiontocompelisGRANTED.YoungevityshallreimburseWakayaforthereasonableexpenses,includingattorney'sfees,associatedwithbringingthismotionanditseffortstore-designateYoungevity'sJuly21,2017andAugust22,2017productions.

Dated:December21,2017

Footnotes

[1]

AllpagenumbersincitationstothedocketrefertothosegeneratedbytheCM/ECFsystem.

[2]

WakayahasnotfiledaresponsivepleadingtoYoungevity'sFourthAmendedComplaint.Youngevity'smotion

9of11

tostrikeanddismissWakaya'sFirstAmendedAnswerandCounterclaim(ECFNo.90)wasgrantedinpartanddeniedinpartonDecember13,2107(ECFNo.330)andWakaya'smotionforleavetofileaSecondAmendedCounterclaim(ECFNo.111)wasgrantedonDecember15,2017(ECFNo.331).WakayahasuntilDecember27,2017tofileitsSecondAmendedComplaint,andYoungevityhas30daysthereaftertorespond.(Id.)

[3]

NeitherpartyprovidedacopyofMr.Awerbuch'sAugust24,2017email.Thisemailisreferenced,however,inanemailattachedtoYoungevity'soppositionbrief.(ECFNo.240-3at135.)

[4]

Thepartiesweregrantedleavetodeposespecificwitnessesafterthisdate.(ECFNos.244,224,208.)

[5]

YoungevitystatesthatitinformedcounselofthemissingdocumentsduringtheweekofSeptember25,2017.(ECFNo.260-1at4.)WakayastatesthatYoungevityinformeditofthemissingdocumentsonoraboutOctober2,2017.(ECFNo.252-3at13.)

[6]

“Rule26(f)addressesthedevelopmentofadiscoveryplanandreferences‘anyotherordersthatshouldbeenteredbythecourtunderRule26(c),’theruleaddressingprotectiveorders.”Harmstonv.City&Cty.ofSanFrancisco,No.C07-01186SI,2007WL3306526,at*9(N.D.Cal.Nov.6,2007)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.26(f)(3)).

[7]

TheLocalRulesprovidethat“[t]hecourtwillentertainnomotionpursuanttoRules26through37,Fed.R.Civ.P.,unlesscounselwillhavepreviouslymetandconferredconcerningalldisputedissues.”CivLR.26.1.

[8]

Bothpartiesarguethattheyhavesufferedmoreprejudicethantheothersideasaresultoftheopposingparty'sfailuretocomplywiththediscoveryrules.(SeeECFNos.232at4-5,7,240at12.)ThedisputebeforetheCourtiswhetherYoungevitycompliedwithitsdiscoveryobligations,notwhichpartyhassufferedmorefromtheiropponent'sdiscoveryabuses.SeeMontgomeryv.HomeDepotU.S.A.,Inc.,No.3:12-cv-03057-AJB-DHB(S.D.Cal.Dec.3,2016)(“[D]iscoveryisnotconductedona‘tit-for-tat’basis,andthefactthatPlaintiffmayhavesufferedprejudiceinconnectionwith[defendant's]allegeduntimelydocumentproductiondoesnotremovetheprejudice[defendant]sufferedasaresultofPlaintiff'simproper‘documentdump.’IfPlaintifftrulyexperiencedprejudice,asalleged,hisproperremedywastohavesoughtappropriatesanctions.”).

[9]

YoungevitycitestoanemailattachedtoWakaya'sreplybriefremindingemployeestocleanouttheofficerefrigerator(ECFNo.252-3at418)asanexampleofadocumentWakayaidentifiesasnon-responsivebutwhichYoungevitymaintainsisresponsive.YoungevityarguesthatthisemailisresponsivetoWakaya'srequestsforproductionrequesting“allDocuments,Communications,orESIfromJanuary1,2014,tothepresentrelatedtoanyDefendantorCounterclaimPlaintiff.”(ECFNos.260at6,240-3at48,68,88,107.)ThisemailisnotresponsivetoWakaya'srequestsforproduction.TheemailcopiesMichelleWallach,aPlaintiffandCounterclaimDefendant.IftheemailhadcopiedaDefendantorCounterclaimPlaintiff,however,theemailremindingemployeestocleanouttherefrigeratorwouldhavebeenresponsivetoWakaya'srequestsforproduction.

[10]

YoungevitycitestoaJune4,2017emailexchangeinwhichWakayaprovidesYoungevitywithitshitlistandYoungevitythenrefusestoprovideWakayawithitshitlistandinsteadsendsalengthylistofproposedmodificationstonarrowWakaya'ssearchterms.(ECFNo.240-3at113-28.)Aftermeetingandconferring,counselconveyedtoWakayathatitwouldacceptmorelimitedmodifications,statingthat“Youngevityisamendabletosimilarlyomittingonlythefollowingterms[fromtheproposedsearchtermstoberunacrossWakaya'sESI],whichbasedonthedataobtainedthusfarproducedisproportionatenumberofresults:Dr*,label*;protect*;#wacky;*phone*.”(ECFNo.252-3at350-51.)Wakayaagreedtoomitlabel*,protect*,and*phone*,andsubstitute“Dr.”forDr*,butstatedthat“particularlywithoutreviewingthenumberofresults

10of11

©2018eDiscoveryAssistantLLC.NoclaimtooriginalU.S.GovernmentWorks.

generated,wecannotagreetoomit#wackyinlightofinformationreportedtoandobservedbyusregardinghowthathashtaghasbeenandisbeingused.”(Id.at349;ECFNo.252-1at28.)WakayathenreneweditsrequestforYoungevity'shitlist.(Id.)

[11]

YoungevityalsoarguesthatWakayaconflates“relevance”with“responsiveness,”andYoungevityisnotrequiredtodeterminewhichdocumentsarerelevanttoWakaya'sclaimsanddefenses.(ECFNo.260at3-5.)TheCourtdoesnotaddressthisargumentfurtherastheCourtdoesnotconsiderwhetherYoungevity'sproductioncontained“irrelevant”documents,asopposedtonon-responsivedocuments,incomingtoitsdecision.

[12]

WakayacitestoRule37(b)(2)(B)butquotesRule37(b)(2)(A)initsmotion.(ECFNo.232at11.)TheCourtpresumesthatWakayaintendedtociteRule37(b)(2)(A).

[13]

YoungevityhasnotyetpresentedtheCourtwithsufficientevidencetoenabletheCourttoconsiderallthefactorsnecessaryinsettingreasonablefeesunderbothFed.R.Civ.P.37andpertinentcaselaw.SeeCamachov.BridgeportFin.,Inc.,523F.3d973,978(9thCir.2008) .

EndofDocument.

11of11