Monique WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants Civil Action No. 17-445 (JDB) United States District Court, District of Columbia Signed December 06, 2018 Counsel Karen E. Evans, Washington, DC, Rabiah Abdullah, The Cochran Firm, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Diana Viggiano Valdivia, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant United States of America. Bates, John D., United States District Judge ORDER *1 The parties request that the Court intervene yet again to referee a discovery dispute. The issues in dispute this time around leave the Court with a distinct feeling of déjà vu. On September 27, 2018, the Court ordered, among other things, that defendants could search the cell phone of the decedent, H.W., “subject to the limitations and procedures outlined” in the order. Sept. 27, 2018, Order [ECF No. 31] at 8. These limitations and procedures included that: (1) “Defendants will instruct their data recovery specialist to use specific keywords, agreed upon by the parties in advance, to search textual data on the phone (such as text messages and emails) but may extract without limitation other materials (such as audio or video) that are not reasonably subject to being searched using keywords”; (2) “Defendants’ data recovery specialist will then turn over the results of its search first to plaintiff's counsel, who will review the information and, within a reasonable time, will raise any claim of privilege in the manner prescribed by applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”; (3) “The data recovery specialist may then turn over any relevant, nonprivileged materials to defendants’ counsel”; and (4) “[N]either defendants nor their data recovery specialist will retain or preserve any data that is not relevant to the categories of information [described in the order].” Id. at 7–8. Shortly thereafter, the parties disagreed about whether Williams could depose a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on topics related to the authenticity of the electronic medical records of Children's National Medical Center (“CNMC”), and the court permitted the parties to file position papers. Oct. 5, 2018, Order [ECF No. 32] at 1. The Court ordered that the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition could proceed, but because Williams had proposed “a broader scope of interrogation than is necessary ... or is appropriate,” the Court required that Williams “provide a copy of the proposed Rule 30(b)(6) notice” for the Court's consideration. Oct. 16, 2018, Order [ECF No. 36] at 2. Williams provided a Rule 30(b)(6) notice with eight topics listed, and after careful consideration the Court ordered the deposition “to proceed on the eight topics that plaintiff has proposed.” Oct. 23, 2018, Order [ECF No. 38]. The Court declined to set a specific date for the deposition, instead ordering the parties to “confer and determine a mutually-agreed upon date and time for the deposition.” Id. Most recently, during a phone conference with chambers on December 3, 2018, the parties sought to revive many of these same issues. As to the decedent's cell phone, Williams refuses to provide the cell phone to defendants’ data recovery specialist because defendants will not provide keywords for the search of text-based data on the phone. Defendants restate their earlier concern about the possibility that the teenaged decedent used slang terms and abbreviations, see Def. U.S.’s Statement of Position on Inspection of Decedent, H.W.’s, Cell Phone [ECF No. 29] at 9, as a justification for why defendants should not be required to provide keywords for the search. Instead, defendants propose that their data recovery specialist restore all data from the phone and provide it to Williams, so that Williams can sift through the data and produce that which is relevant and unprivileged. Williams, unsurprisingly, declines. Williams also asks that defendants pay all costs related to recovering data on the phone* and that the Court prohibit recovery of location data from the phone. *2 As to CNMC's Rule 30(b)(6) witness(es), Williams wants to complete all Rule 30(b)(6) depositions by not later than the end of either December 2018 or January 2019. Discovery closes March 29, 2019. Revised Scheduling Order [ECF No. 39] at ¶ 2. CNMC explains that one witness will be prepared by January 15, 2019, but that it needs more time to prepare a second witness. CNMC also requests leave to file a motion to quash certain deposition topics, because, apparently, Williams's Rule 30(b)(6) notice has expanded in scope since the Court reviewed the proposed notice in October. The Court regrets spilling more ink resolving the parties’ discovery disputes, particularly since none of the issues raised call for legal analysis. Nevertheless, it is hereby ORDERED that recovery of data from H.W.’s cell phone shall proceed as directed in the Court's Sept. 27, 2018, Order; it is further ORDERED that the search of H.W.’s cell phone shall cover textual and audiovisual data, as described in the Court's Sept. 27, 2018, Order, but shall not, at this time, include location data; it is further ORDERED that if defendants have a good-faith belief that location data is (1) recoverable, (2) relevant, (3) necessary, (4) accessible through reasonable means with respect both to cost and to effort, and (5) susceptible to reasonable limitations to mitigate the significant privacy concerns triggered by discovery of such data, then defendants may raise these points in a motion to extend the search to include such data; it is further ORDERED that the parties shall “confer and determine a mutually-agreed upon date and time,” see Oct. 23, 2018, Order—but not later than February 5, 2019—to depose CNMC's Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses; it is further ORDERED that the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition(s) shall “proceed on the eight topics that plaintiff has proposed” to this Court, see Oct. 23, 2018, Order—and only as to those eight topics; and it is further ORDERED that defendants’ request for leave to file a motion to quash deposition topics is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Footnotes * The issue of who should bear the burden of costs related to recovery of the cell phone data is not yet ripe for consideration. At an appropriate time, such an issue may be brought to the Court, if necessary.