Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Background

After a telephone conference on February 11, 2021, the court issued this discovery order. Discovery is the pretrial process in which parties obtain information and documents relevant to the case. The order concerned document requests made by Ashu Shukla and Deloitte Consulting LLP, the parties’ use of redactions, objections to a protective order, and access to Shukla’s email inbox.

The court reminded Shukla that all communications with the court must be filed on the electronic docket unless the court gives advance permission for email or telephone communication. The court stated that it would not consider communications submitted through other methods.

Shukla’s document requests

The court ruled on Shukla’s ten proposed document requests as follows:

Redactions and protective order

The court ruled that Shukla could redact documents only on the basis of attorney-client privilege or physician-patient privilege. By March 13, 2021, he had to produce versions of documents with other redactions removed. For redactions he believed should remain, he had to serve a privilege log identifying each document by date, author, recipient, and subject and stating the basis for each redaction.

Shukla’s objections to the protective order were denied. The protective order remained unchanged and in effect.

Deloitte’s document requests

The court ruled on Deloitte’s seven requests as follows:

- Request 1 was granted in part as modified. By March 13, 2021, Shukla had to produce documents sufficient to identify efforts to mitigate damages from November 5, 2018, through the present, including efforts involving alternative employment, self-employment, or independent-contractor or consulting services. - Requests 2, 3, and 7 were granted. Shukla had to conduct a reasonable search and produce all responsive documents by March 13. - Request 4 was granted in part as modified. Shukla had to produce documents sufficient to identify each lawsuit he had initiated within the previous five years. - Request 5 was granted in part as modified. Shukla had to search for and produce specified photographs, audio recordings, video recordings, or other recordings concerning Deloitte personnel and relating to his employment or supporting the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint. - Request 6 was denied as not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case at that time. The denial was without prejudice to Deloitte’s reasserting the request at a later stage of discovery.

Deloitte represented that it had removed non-attorney-client-privilege redactions from documents it previously produced, except for a voluminous spreadsheet covered by an earlier order, and had produced privilege logs for documents it continued to redact based on attorney-client privilege. The court stated that nothing further was required from Deloitte on redactions at that time.

Email access, deadlines, and enforcement

The court denied any request by Shukla for an order requiring Deloitte to conduct a further search of his email inbox. The order stated that Shukla could pursue further inquiry into that subject during depositions.

Discovery deadlines not addressed by the order were adjourned indefinitely. The deadlines in the order could be extended by written application showing good cause. The court expected both parties to comply and warned Shukla that violations could lead to sanctions up to and including dismissal of his claims.

Disposition and classification

This was a procedural discovery order, not a decision on the merits of the underlying dispute. The order granted, denied, granted in part, deferred, or found moot particular discovery requests and set compliance requirements. It was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.