KST Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co., et al Case No. 2:17-cv-7927-SJO (SKx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed October 11, 2018 Counsel Ashley D. Bowman, Nicole R. Van Dyk, Naeun Rim, Gary S. Lincenberg, Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg and Rhow, Los Angeles, CA, for KST Data, Inc. Brian C. Vanderhoof, Brian C. Vanderhoof, LeClairRyan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attison L. Barnes, III, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, for DXC Tech. Co., et al. Kim, Steve, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ES' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY NON-PARTY DME (ECF 100) *1 Defendant/Counterclaimant Enterprise Services LLC (ES) moves to compel DME Products & Services, Inc. (DME) to produce documents in response to a subpoena served on DME in July 2018. (ECF 100). The motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.[1] 1. DME's Production of Documents for 22 Undisputed RFPs For the 22 undisputed RFPs, DME has agreed to produce responsive documents but failed to provide a production schedule. Under the 2015 revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, responding parties must provide dates certain for document productions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (Dec. 1, 2015); see also id., 2015 Adv. Comm. Note to Rule 34 (“When it is necessary to make the production in stages the response should specify the beginning and end dates of the production.”); Fischer v. Forrest, 2017 WL 773694, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) (“responses [that] do not indicate when documents and ESI that defendants are producing will be produced” violates amended Rule 34). Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, and to the extent not already produced, DME shall produce all documents responsive to the 22 undisputed RFPs by no later than October 22, 2018. 2. Documents Presumptively Obtainable from KST For RFP Nos. 3, 5, 13, 15, and 16, ES's motion to compel is denied without prejudice. If ES, in its review of documents produced by KST, identifies either (i) specific gaps in those document productions that DME can uniquely and readily fill by responding to these five disputed RFPs, or (ii) documents responsive to the five disputed RFPs that are reasonably believed to be in the exclusive possession, custody, or control of DME, counsel for DME and ES shall meet and confer by telephone or in person, so that DME can determine and disclose whether it has any such documents. Any responsive documents identified through that conference of counsel shall be produced by no later than October 22, 2018 unless the parties agree to a different deadline. 3. DME's Communications with NASA ES's motion to compel for RFP No. 6 is granted in part. The requested communications must be between DME and NASA and relate to the four specific ACES contracts referenced in the Joint Stipulation. (ECF 101 at 19). If ES wants to propose search terms that DME should use in its search, it must do so within five days of this order. DME shall produce any responsive documents by no later than October 22, 2018 unless the parties stipulate otherwise. 4. DME's Financial Documents For RFP Nos. 25 and 26, ES's motion to compel is denied without prejudice to renewing after its review of documents produced by DME in response to RFP Nos. 7-11, and RFP No. 27 (as ordered below). After that review, if ES maintains that additional documents responsive to RFP Nos. 25 and 26 should be produced because they are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, the parties may seek an informal telephonic conference limited to this narrow issue by following the Court's procedures for such conference. *2 ES's motion to compel for RFP No. 27 is granted but only for financial statements through 2015. See, e.g., M.G. v. Metro. Interpreters & Translators, Inc., 2014 WL 5494910, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014)(compelling limited disclosure of financial statements to interrogatories seeking detailed financial information); Corbello v. Devito, 2011 WL 2413434, at *8 (D. Nev. June 10, 2011) (requiring production of audited financial statements, but not other financial information). DME shall produce documents responsive to this RFP by no later than October 22, 2018 unless the parties agree otherwise. * * * * * Nothing in this order may be relied on as a reason to extend the fact discovery cut-off date set by the assigned District Judge. Nor may anything in this order justify additional discovery beyond the cut-off date set by the District Judge unless the parties agree to do so without court order. The hearing on this matter noticed for October 24, 2018 is vacated. [1] This order does not preclude the parties from reaching different agreements on disputed requests without court intervention.