City & Cnty. of San Fran. v. US Postal Serv.

Full title: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff, v. US POSTAL SERVICE…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 17, 2011

No. C-09-01964 RS (EDL) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011)

Opinion

No. C-09-01964 RS (EDL)

10-17-2011

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff, v. US POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO COMPEL (DOCKET 252)

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel Privilege Log (docket 252). Because this motion was appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court vacated the October 18, 2011 hearing. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion is denied.

By this Motion, Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to produce a privilege log relating to documents withheld by the Department of Building Inspection from files that Defendant inspected over the summer. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has agreed to produce the log on several occasions since May 2011. Plaintiff produced the log on August 30, 2011, after this Motion was filed. See Lee Decl. Ex. F. It is regrettable that the log was not produced sooner and it would have been preferable to have avoided motion practice on this issue. However, to the extent that Defendant's Motion sought production of a privilege log, the motion is denied as moot.

In the reply brief, Defendant seeks a court order requiring Plaintiff to certify the completeness and accuracy of the August 30, 2011 privilege log on the grounds that Plaintiff unduly delayed in producing the log, which had only six entries. The Court does not find anything inherently suspicious about the length or the content of the log. Further, on October 12, 2011, after the briefing on this motion was complete, Plaintiff provided a Certification of Privilege Log, stating that "the City hereby certifies that its privilege log produced on August 30, 2011 is true, accurate, and complete to the best of the City's knowledge, information and belief." Accordingly, Defendant's request for a certification is denied as moot.

Defendant also seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to produce any litigation holds issued in connection with this case, even though Defendant did not previously seek discovery on this issue. Discovery closed in this case in June 2011, and Defendant has not made a showing that there is any reason to believe that Plaintiff has not preserved documents. Thus, Defendant's request for discovery of any litigation holds is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge