Opinion
Case No.: 11-MD-2250-LHK (PSG)
03-11-2013
IN RE iPHONE/iPAD APPLICATION CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION
ORDER SETTING HEARING RE:
MOTION TO COMPEL AND APPLE
DISCOVERY FILINGS
(Re: Docket Nos. 150, 206, 208, 211)
On March 6, 2013, the court issued an order granting-in-part the class-action Plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses from Apple. In that order, the court observed that, despite previous representations to both this court and Judge Koh, Apple had not yet completed production of all responsive documents and had not fully complied with the court's order on November 21, 2013. To ensure that Apple in fact was fulfilling its discovery obligations and now is complying with the November 21 order, the court deferred ruling on part of Plaintiffs' motion to compel and ordered Apple to file documents explaining in detail its discovery procedures, including what searches it undertook, how many documents were responsive to those searches, and how it narrowed 100,000 documents retrieved in those searches to only 3,000 that it produced. Apple filed documents explaining its procedures on March 8, 2013.
See Docket No. 203.
See id.
See id.
See Docket No. 211.
--------
The court has reviewed Apple's filing and finds that although Apple's submission sheds certain light on its process, significant questions remain regarding how discovery has proceeded and whether Apple has made a reasonable effort to respond to Plaintiffs' requests. The court therefore sets a hearing for Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. to provide Apple and Plaintiffs with an opportunity to respond to the court's inquiries. By the hearing date, Apple will have completed its supplemental production, and so the parties should be prepared to discuss any remaining concerns. To ensure a productive hearing, the court outlines here topics it would like the parties to be prepared to speak about at the hearing:
• The guidelines and instructions used to determine whether documents were responsive to the Requests for Production;Lead counsel may discuss these topics, but the court also welcomes other persons from Apple or its outside counsel who have knowledge of these topics to provide information regarding discovery procedures.
• the criteria for selecting custodians;
• the disclosures between the parties regarding discovery procedures; and
• the method by which Apple selected its search terms.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge