Barrett v. Apple Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-04812
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Barrett v. Apple Inc., Judge DeMarchi set discovery deadlines, delayed Apple’s corporate deposition, and ordered faster document production.
The order affected the plaintiffs and Apple and the other defendants by setting deadlines and sequencing requirements for document production and depositions, especially discovery concerning class certification.
What happened
Barrett v. Apple Inc. involved disagreements about completing fact discovery, including when plaintiffs could question Apple through a company representative and how Apple would respond to a document request. Apple wanted to delay the company deposition while its request for a protective order was pending; plaintiffs opposed delaying it.
The court decided that Apple did not have to provide the company-representative testimony before substantially completing document production about class-certification issues. The court also required Apple to move faster on that production and set deadlines for producing documents, completing class-certification discovery, and finishing fact discovery. The court reminded the parties to try to resolve discovery disputes in good faith before asking the court to intervene.
Judge DeMarchi ordered the discovery plan on February 25, 2022. The plan required initial document production by February 28, 2022; substantial completion of certain document production by April 15, 2022; substantial completion of class-certification document production by August 26, 2022; and completion of fact discovery, including depositions on class-certification issues, by February 24, 2023.
The detailed version
- Barrett v. Apple Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-04812
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 25, 2022
Background
The parties submitted proposed plans for completing fact discovery. They agreed on some matters but disagreed mainly about deposition scheduling and Apple’s obligations concerning Plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 23. Apple had asked for a protective order—an order limiting or delaying discovery—to prevent plaintiffs from taking a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Apple while Judge Davila considered Apple’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs proposed May 27, 2022, as the deadline for completing that deposition and argued that discovery should not be delayed.
Corporate deposition
The court held that plaintiffs had not shown why Apple’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition should occur before substantial completion of relevant document production. The court therefore would not require Apple to provide testimony through one or more corporate representatives before substantially completing production of documents concerning class-certification issues. At the same time, the court required Apple to proceed more quickly with that document production.
The court also encouraged the parties to coordinate individual and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions to avoid unnecessary burdens on individual witnesses. It did not require witnesses to be questioned in both capacities on the same day. Party depositions could occur before substantial completion of document production if the parties agreed; otherwise, the court expected them to occur after August 26, 2022.
Request for Production No. 23 and discovery disputes
The court stated that it would not micromanage the parties’ resolution of discovery disputes. It reminded them to confer in good faith and said disputes they could not resolve could be submitted through the expedited discovery procedures in Judge DeMarchi’s standing order.
Discovery plan and disposition
Judge DeMarchi ordered the following plan:
- Apple’s first production of responsive documents for the agreed custodians and search terms was due February 28,
- - Apple was to substantially complete production of those custodial documents by April 15,
- - The parties’ deadline for substantial completion of document production concerning class-certification issues was August 26,
- - The deadline for completing fact discovery, including depositions concerning class-certification issues, was February 24, 2023.
The order stated that the plan did not preempt or interfere with any future case-management deadlines set by the presiding judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.