Preview
O“, “'Jl
SAN
“Lag
MATEO COUNTY
'
.
mwomcssm _
NOV 1 3 2019
‘
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY £1 SCHOENBERGER
A PROFESSQQNAL CORPORATION ,
“parlor Court
ByCIerk
550 CAUFORNIASTREET; 25WFLoorz '%}. 85L»)
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA‘Qmoazzms
981
T: (4 1 5) O
-7:21-
391-5955
F: (41 5)
DEpmh CLERK
MATTHEW D DAVIS (State Bar #141986)
mdavis@wa1kup1awoffi0e com
SPENCER J
CDIfi-QGEO‘KACJOMH
PAHLKE (State Bar #250914)
Spahlke@walkuplawoflice com
VALERIE N ROSE (State Bar #272566.)
vrose@w,alkup_1awoffi(§e,.pom
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
‘
BRICEIDA LOPEZ AND JOSE SOLIS
SUPERIOR COURT'OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN ammo
HHHH
BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an individual, JOSE Case‘No; 1801V01696
‘
» ‘
"
s,0LIs,anindividua1,‘ > _ U ¥ ,
M: I
ORDER GRANTING MOTION To
Plaintiffs,
‘
COMPEL PRODUCTION
14
‘v. Afiion‘med: April 6i 2018
Trial Date: February 18; 2020
PAUL BVONIFACIOJ an individual, ‘ '
A
’
MARGARET HYUN, an indimdual,
AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., a busmess
entity, AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC, a
corporation AMERIGAS, INC” :a
corporatiOn, and DOES ONE through
ONE- HUNDRED, inclusive,
Defendafitst
This matter came on speciallyise‘t for hearing on, October ‘21, 2019'» at 9 a.m.
before the Honérable Susan L. Green'berg, Dapar’tm‘ent 3 of the San Mateo Superior
‘
Court. Valerie N. Rose appeared on behalf of‘plaintifféBriceida Lopez and JOSe
Solis. Keith Gillette énd‘ James Hultqui‘St appeared on behalf ‘of defendant
''
AmeriGas. ‘
Based upon the submittedpaperg the arguments, o‘f counSel and for
good cause appearing, .
r
I r.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION T0 COMPEL PRODUCTION - GASE‘NO». 1801\701696
i)
‘x/‘A \\-
IT IS HEREBYORDERED THAT: ‘
_
[O Plaintiffs" motiofi t0 cOmpel production is.GRANTED, in part. The court notes
that, although Plainfiiffs titled their mafiiOn a motion to compel furthérfreSpOIisés ‘tos
requests for production, bofih parties have treaiied the motion as a mdtion to compel
production, both in their initial papers and in the suppleméntal briefing. As result,
‘9;
mmqmcn'ggo
the count. Will consider Plaintiffs" motion as a4motion t0 compel production.
Plamtiffs”: first; set; 0f requests for production ofdocuments was propounded. ten
months ago, in DecemBer‘ 20 18.nThe requests did not state: in'what- format any ESI.
was to be produced. In accordance With CCP 203128083), Defendant was required t0
10 state innits response the form in Which it intended-to produce each type o‘f
11 information. Defendafit did not d0 so, Inits initial response 'to Plaintiffs’ motion to
12 ~
compel further- responseé, Defendant asserted that “Other than the zscreenshots froin.
.13 AmeriGas” internal databases which might be. construedras‘ ESI '(AmfieriG‘as does not
14 consider them t0,be ESI), AmeriGas does not have any‘ESi that is responsive t0
15 Plaintiff’sxRequests?’ 4/22/19 Opposition, p.6. Def‘endafit has apparefifly abandoned
‘
>
16 this position.
'
17 In Defendant’s supplemental brief, it notes that.
18 It Qas not until after March 4-,2019,, thatzcounsel understood that there
19‘ were resources at AmeriGas Other “thath-hose With ?Wh‘om counsel hadfbeen
2'0 working to obtain responsive documents and information to Plaintifis’ fi'rstiset
21 Of discovér‘y. Namely, counsel ‘tlnders’toud there were resourcés, including the
.22 SAP :databas‘e fi‘hat i'eflécted thé names of employees who delivére‘d prepane to
2’3 0r made inspections a't the subject residence; As these additional mafierials
24 beCame aVailable; they were proauéed to: Plaintiffs; v
25 Defehdant’s .Supplefienfial Brief; p53. Defendant ffirther notes ihat,»
26 After. Calvin Svoboda’s depoait‘ion 0n Afigust 21, 20.19, gounselfor
27 AmeriGas realizedthat AmeriG‘as’ prior pi'oductions did not include
28 doguments identifying the employees who delivered propane t0 and made
mug; cfncis
0.?
Rwy
‘WALKUP, MELODLA.
fiasmxomssnem
A yaorzssngm mgxz‘uor.
550 CALwoRNI/x smtsf
7 03
’3
sm’mm’czi‘sca, c‘rl gno‘a
(4 15¢ 531.1210
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO’ COMPEL PRODUCTION -
CASE NO. 1'801V01696’
inspections Subject residéflce- 0n November 21,
a‘t t’h‘e’ 2015;; January 24, 20-16;
{\L‘ ’an’dOetob’Er 25, 2016.. Counsel :fofrAmeriGas then conferred With AmeriGas,
GOV
ifiquired into the existence 'Ofsuéh documents, and produced such doeufiie‘rit’s
pk on S‘epféembe'r 11, 2019. Id, 13.3.
CI!
Defe‘fridant does not explain why counsel didn‘o‘t disfiover file “‘a‘dditiOnal
materials”, until after Mardh 4, ’why Eoilmsel didn'ot realizé that {prim prodfictimis
o'r‘
we're incomplete until after Mr? 'Svobada’s deposition on August 21. In any eVent,
Defendant now contends that
"(Docum Plainfiifi's are not entitled t0 produétion of data frém
.AmeriGas’ SAP database. beybnd the 'use'r interface, including audit logs and other
‘
meta'data', because the ‘met-adata: “is irrelevant t0 t—he Subject matter in'this
litigation.” Defendant's Supplemental Brief, p.5. D'efendant’s claim is'withoui' merit.
Defendant has ackne‘wled'ged that. Defendant’s SAP database system includes driver
identifiCatién Codes and ‘th‘at Defendant can use those codes t0 identify’the drivers
who mad’e deliveries t0 tihe, residence at isSue. Further, While Defendant has
identified categories ofVi‘nfqrfilatfiorI that it contends are 11m: relevant}; Defehdant’s
claim thé‘t the. metadata is’:irrelevafi't is unpersuasive because Defendant has not
disclosed what informa'tiOn is contained in the metadata.
I
Défen‘d'a’nt also contends that “has'a’lreadyr served‘verified ifit’err'ogatory
‘i’t
responses identifying the dates of all deliveries and inspections at the: subject
residencean‘d identifying the employegsi who made those deliveries and i113p_ections,”
and that it is not; required to fix'oduce SAP
i‘ts’
database ihfbr‘m’atiofi in‘ more than one
form pursuant to COP ,20‘31.280(,d).» Defendant, hoWever, has taken more, than hiné
‘
months to provide what it represents is‘a complete response to Plaintiffs’ requests for
production. Defendant has provided‘njo adequate explanation for its pariodie
discovery of additional resources and materials“ several months after its responses
were due. Undexf these circumstances, Defendant has nogro‘undsr‘to demand‘that
Plaintifis rely on its representations as t0 the cdmpleteness .of itsdisco‘very responses
to date.
khw ,OFHCES 0F
WALKUP. Mwmm, Ksux
&SCHOE:NBERGER
amny‘tssmrgm COQPOEWIQN
EEQcALIFORNIKSTREU
"(H f
n. R
.
mamcrscoza Mo's
'sAN
Mm 981- 72m ORDER. GRANTING MOTION T0 COMPEL PRODUCTION -
CASE 'NO. IBCIVOIESG
(n
\\/’ . x/
Defendanty has not argued that production'of thereques’ted metadata would be
unduly burdensome or’erxpens‘ive. Indeed, despite the objections mated abo‘VeK
Defendant states that: i't“is Willing to coniplyuwith Plaintiffs," proposed in'spec‘t‘vionn
_
protocol th- the extent that fibejSAP database- c‘a‘nrun the queries propfased by
[Plaintiffs’ exp’ert,J Mr. Garza.” Defendant’s Supplemental’Briefi'pfi. "Based on
Defendant’s agreement! 'and in light of the foregoing avnaiYSis, fihevco‘luft orders
mmqmoy
Defendant AmeriGas 'to (1) co‘nduct the queries identified in Exhibit B t9 Peter
Garza’s declaration and (2f)produce all information obtained a result of the queries
as‘r
‘of.its SAP database jna common file format, such a_‘scomma‘s‘epara‘ted values
(“.CSV”).
The experts shall, meet and cOnfer withrespec‘t to the queries outlined abq§e
‘
by October 31, 201-9.
_'
Following'th’e meet and confer, Plaintiffék shall provide AmeriGas With the
specific queries that Plaintiffs believe the eXper'ts agreed should be run by No‘vember
V
'
6, 2019,.
AmeriGas shallpror’vide Plaintiffs with a response by Novembei‘ 13,,2619.
k
The, Court's expectation is,th’at AmeriGas willp‘rovide the resnits fi‘om the
.agr‘eedflpon queries Within 21 d‘ay‘s‘
thereafter; However, either partyma’y seek
Court assistance‘o‘r the parties, may agree to.an Extgnsion of this timeline should the.
~
need arise.
'
The court, however, deeline‘s to order fh‘at PlaintiffS’ expert observe the
queries; as set forth in the proposed inspection protocol. Plaintiffs. have provided no
argument .or authority in support. 0f this condition.
The court also déclines:P1aintiffs’ request t0,compel Defendant to "‘pi'ogduce a
PMQ de'p‘onellt With live access t0 the; poxtiqna 0f the SAP database relating to the
residence.” The issue 0f whether t0 compel the deposifion of Defendant’s PMQ. isrnot‘
fiprerly before the cdurt. This issue was notxraised in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel,
|
Plaintiff's,have ndt separately noticed a‘
motion to Compel fhé depoéit’ig‘rnjand there is
LAW GmQES or
WALKW. Mummy, KELLY
scmmsmaex
s;
mmmmnon}
a xlmxsspmz
aw CALIFORNIA 5mm ,
‘4‘
, V .
25m Hock
'
SAMIRANCISCQ CA 94108,
rmsyssmzm
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPELAPRODUCTION -CASE N0. ISCIVOIGQG
x/
I
\,,,J
‘noi'ndica’c‘io’n that the parties have met .and donferred on this issue. Further,
l0 Plaintiffs haVe'provided no pertinent authority in support of this request.
The court reserves- fof lafier determination the issue of Plaintiffs" request for:
/
sanctions.
If the tentativeruling is uncontested, it shall become- t'he order the
ruff Court,
Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs, shallprepzare a,written order consiétent With the
‘
Court’s ruling for Court’s signature, pursuant to Rule
‘
the Galiftmnia- Rulgs of Court,
3. 1312, and provide written notice 0f the ruling 1:0-a‘11.partiés-who. have appeared in
the'action, as required by 'law and the California Rules of Court,”
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12 Dated: ‘
‘/ l3 ,
20.19 ‘
8115mm GREENBERG
13
JUDGE 0F THESUPERIOR COURT
14-“
'15
WKQB
_
Approved as to form
.16
,1?
18
'19
Kenn? R?” Gillette
James Hultquist
6W p
Wm?
Couxisel far AmeriGas
20
2'1
22
’
23
24‘
'
25
26
27
28
LA W OFFICES OP
\VALKUI. M? LUNA; KELU
5L SCHOFNBERGER
Ar aormmrm. comom flaw
550 CAL” ORNIA STRE r T . . 5 .
>
SAN? WJCTSCO 9%
94 108
172: fl
~ ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION -
CASE N'O'XISCIVOIGSG.
Preview
O“, “'Jl SAN “Lag MATEO COUNTY ' . mwomcssm _ NOV 1 3 2019 ‘ WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY £1 SCHOENBERGER A PROFESSQQNAL CORPORATION , “parlor Court ByCIerk 550 CAUFORNIASTREET; 25WFLoorz '%}. 85L») SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA‘Qmoazzms 981 T: (4 1 5) O -7:21- 391-5955 F: (41 5) DEpmh CLERK MATTHEW D DAVIS (State Bar #141986) mdavis@wa1kup1awoffi0e com SPENCER J CDIfi-QGEO‘KACJOMH PAHLKE (State Bar #250914) Spahlke@walkuplawoflice com VALERIE N ROSE (State Bar #272566.) vrose@w,alkup_1awoffi(§e,.pom ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ‘ BRICEIDA LOPEZ AND JOSE SOLIS SUPERIOR COURT'OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN ammo HHHH BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an individual, JOSE Case‘No; 1801V01696 ‘ » ‘ " s,0LIs,anindividua1,‘ > _ U ¥ , M: I ORDER GRANTING MOTION To Plaintiffs, ‘ COMPEL PRODUCTION 14 ‘v. Afiion‘med: April 6i 2018 Trial Date: February 18; 2020 PAUL BVONIFACIOJ an individual, ‘ ' A ’ MARGARET HYUN, an indimdual, AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., a busmess entity, AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC, a corporation AMERIGAS, INC” :a corporatiOn, and DOES ONE through ONE- HUNDRED, inclusive, Defendafitst This matter came on speciallyise‘t for hearing on, October ‘21, 2019'» at 9 a.m. before the Honérable Susan L. Green'berg, Dapar’tm‘ent 3 of the San Mateo Superior ‘ Court. Valerie N. Rose appeared on behalf of‘plaintifféBriceida Lopez and JOSe Solis. Keith Gillette énd‘ James Hultqui‘St appeared on behalf ‘of defendant '' AmeriGas. ‘ Based upon the submittedpaperg the arguments, o‘f counSel and for good cause appearing, . r I r. ORDER GRANTING MOTION T0 COMPEL PRODUCTION - GASE‘NO». 1801\701696 i) ‘x/‘A \\- IT IS HEREBYORDERED THAT: ‘ _ [O Plaintiffs" motiofi t0 cOmpel production is.GRANTED, in part. The court notes that, although Plainfiiffs titled their mafiiOn a motion to compel furthérfreSpOIisés ‘tos requests for production, bofih parties have treaiied the motion as a mdtion to compel production, both in their initial papers and in the suppleméntal briefing. As result, ‘9; mmqmcn'ggo the count. Will consider Plaintiffs" motion as a4motion t0 compel production. Plamtiffs”: first; set; 0f requests for production ofdocuments was propounded. ten months ago, in DecemBer‘ 20 18.nThe requests did not state: in'what- format any ESI. was to be produced. In accordance With CCP 203128083), Defendant was required t0 10 state innits response the form in Which it intended-to produce each type o‘f 11 information. Defendafit did not d0 so, Inits initial response 'to Plaintiffs’ motion to 12 ~ compel further- responseé, Defendant asserted that “Other than the zscreenshots froin. .13 AmeriGas” internal databases which might be. construedras‘ ESI '(AmfieriG‘as does not 14 consider them t0,be ESI), AmeriGas does not have any‘ESi that is responsive t0 15 Plaintiff’sxRequests?’ 4/22/19 Opposition, p.6. Def‘endafit has apparefifly abandoned ‘ > 16 this position. ' 17 In Defendant’s supplemental brief, it notes that. 18 It Qas not until after March 4-,2019,, thatzcounsel understood that there 19‘ were resources at AmeriGas Other “thath-hose With ?Wh‘om counsel hadfbeen 2'0 working to obtain responsive documents and information to Plaintifis’ fi'rstiset 21 Of discovér‘y. Namely, counsel ‘tlnders’toud there were resourcés, including the .22 SAP :databas‘e fi‘hat i'eflécted thé names of employees who delivére‘d prepane to 2’3 0r made inspections a't the subject residence; As these additional mafierials 24 beCame aVailable; they were proauéed to: Plaintiffs; v 25 Defehdant’s .Supplefienfial Brief; p53. Defendant ffirther notes ihat,» 26 After. Calvin Svoboda’s depoait‘ion 0n Afigust 21, 20.19, gounselfor 27 AmeriGas realizedthat AmeriG‘as’ prior pi'oductions did not include 28 doguments identifying the employees who delivered propane t0 and made mug; cfncis 0.? Rwy ‘WALKUP, MELODLA. fiasmxomssnem A yaorzssngm mgxz‘uor. 550 CALwoRNI/x smtsf 7 03 ’3 sm’mm’czi‘sca, c‘rl gno‘a (4 15¢ 531.1210 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO’ COMPEL PRODUCTION - CASE NO. 1'801V01696’ inspections Subject residéflce- 0n November 21, a‘t t’h‘e’ 2015;; January 24, 20-16; {\L‘ ’an’dOetob’Er 25, 2016.. Counsel :fofrAmeriGas then conferred With AmeriGas, GOV ifiquired into the existence 'Ofsuéh documents, and produced such doeufiie‘rit’s pk on S‘epféembe'r 11, 2019. Id, 13.3. CI! Defe‘fridant does not explain why counsel didn‘o‘t disfiover file “‘a‘dditiOnal materials”, until after Mardh 4, ’why Eoilmsel didn'ot realizé that {prim prodfictimis o'r‘ we're incomplete until after Mr? 'Svobada’s deposition on August 21. In any eVent, Defendant now contends that "(Docum Plainfiifi's are not entitled t0 produétion of data frém .AmeriGas’ SAP database. beybnd the 'use'r interface, including audit logs and other ‘ meta'data', because the ‘met-adata: “is irrelevant t0 t—he Subject matter in'this litigation.” Defendant's Supplemental Brief, p.5. D'efendant’s claim is'withoui' merit. Defendant has ackne‘wled'ged that. Defendant’s SAP database system includes driver identifiCatién Codes and ‘th‘at Defendant can use those codes t0 identify’the drivers who mad’e deliveries t0 tihe, residence at isSue. Further, While Defendant has identified categories ofVi‘nfqrfilatfiorI that it contends are 11m: relevant}; Defehdant’s claim thé‘t the. metadata is’:irrelevafi't is unpersuasive because Defendant has not disclosed what informa'tiOn is contained in the metadata. I Défen‘d'a’nt also contends that “has'a’lreadyr served‘verified ifit’err'ogatory ‘i’t responses identifying the dates of all deliveries and inspections at the: subject residencean‘d identifying the employegsi who made those deliveries and i113p_ections,” and that it is not; required to fix'oduce SAP i‘ts’ database ihfbr‘m’atiofi in‘ more than one form pursuant to COP ,20‘31.280(,d).» Defendant, hoWever, has taken more, than hiné ‘ months to provide what it represents is‘a complete response to Plaintiffs’ requests for production. Defendant has provided‘njo adequate explanation for its pariodie discovery of additional resources and materials“ several months after its responses were due. Undexf these circumstances, Defendant has nogro‘undsr‘to demand‘that Plaintifis rely on its representations as t0 the cdmpleteness .of itsdisco‘very responses to date. khw ,OFHCES 0F WALKUP. Mwmm, Ksux &SCHOE:NBERGER amny‘tssmrgm COQPOEWIQN EEQcALIFORNIKSTREU "(H f n. R . mamcrscoza Mo's 'sAN Mm 981- 72m ORDER. GRANTING MOTION T0 COMPEL PRODUCTION - CASE 'NO. IBCIVOIESG (n \\/’ . x/ Defendanty has not argued that production'of thereques’ted metadata would be unduly burdensome or’erxpens‘ive. Indeed, despite the objections mated abo‘VeK Defendant states that: i't“is Willing to coniplyuwith Plaintiffs," proposed in'spec‘t‘vionn _ protocol th- the extent that fibejSAP database- c‘a‘nrun the queries propfased by [Plaintiffs’ exp’ert,J Mr. Garza.” Defendant’s Supplemental’Briefi'pfi. "Based on Defendant’s agreement! 'and in light of the foregoing avnaiYSis, fihevco‘luft orders mmqmoy Defendant AmeriGas 'to (1) co‘nduct the queries identified in Exhibit B t9 Peter Garza’s declaration and (2f)produce all information obtained a result of the queries as‘r ‘of.its SAP database jna common file format, such a_‘scomma‘s‘epara‘ted values (“.CSV”). The experts shall, meet and cOnfer withrespec‘t to the queries outlined abq§e ‘ by October 31, 201-9. _' Following'th’e meet and confer, Plaintiffék shall provide AmeriGas With the specific queries that Plaintiffs believe the eXper'ts agreed should be run by No‘vember V ' 6, 2019,. AmeriGas shallpror’vide Plaintiffs with a response by Novembei‘ 13,,2619. k The, Court's expectation is,th’at AmeriGas willp‘rovide the resnits fi‘om the .agr‘eedflpon queries Within 21 d‘ay‘s‘ thereafter; However, either partyma’y seek Court assistance‘o‘r the parties, may agree to.an Extgnsion of this timeline should the. ~ need arise. ' The court, however, deeline‘s to order fh‘at PlaintiffS’ expert observe the queries; as set forth in the proposed inspection protocol. Plaintiffs. have provided no argument .or authority in support. 0f this condition. The court also déclines:P1aintiffs’ request t0,compel Defendant to "‘pi'ogduce a PMQ de'p‘onellt With live access t0 the; poxtiqna 0f the SAP database relating to the residence.” The issue 0f whether t0 compel the deposifion of Defendant’s PMQ. isrnot‘ fiprerly before the cdurt. This issue was notxraised in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, | Plaintiff's,have ndt separately noticed a‘ motion to Compel fhé depoéit’ig‘rnjand there is LAW GmQES or WALKW. Mummy, KELLY scmmsmaex s; mmmmnon} a xlmxsspmz aw CALIFORNIA 5mm , ‘4‘ , V . 25m Hock ' SAMIRANCISCQ CA 94108, rmsyssmzm ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPELAPRODUCTION -CASE N0. ISCIVOIGQG x/ I \,,,J ‘noi'ndica’c‘io’n that the parties have met .and donferred on this issue. Further, l0 Plaintiffs haVe'provided no pertinent authority in support of this request. The court reserves- fof lafier determination the issue of Plaintiffs" request for: / sanctions. If the tentativeruling is uncontested, it shall become- t'he order the ruff Court, Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs, shallprepzare a,written order consiétent With the ‘ Court’s ruling for Court’s signature, pursuant to Rule ‘ the Galiftmnia- Rulgs of Court, 3. 1312, and provide written notice 0f the ruling 1:0-a‘11.partiés-who. have appeared in the'action, as required by 'law and the California Rules of Court,” 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: ‘ ‘/ l3 , 20.19 ‘ 8115mm GREENBERG 13 JUDGE 0F THESUPERIOR COURT 14-“ '15 WKQB _ Approved as to form .16 ,1? 18 '19 Kenn? R?” Gillette James Hultquist 6W p Wm? Couxisel far AmeriGas 20 2'1 22 ’ 23 24‘ ' 25 26 27 28 LA W OFFICES OP \VALKUI. M? LUNA; KELU 5L SCHOFNBERGER Ar aormmrm. comom flaw 550 CAL” ORNIA STRE r T . . 5 . > SAN? WJCTSCO 9% 94 108 172: fl ~ ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION - CASE N'O'XISCIVOIGSG.