Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 158 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:7105
`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 158 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:7105
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL
`
`Case No. SA CV 19-01203-JVS (DFMx)
`
`Date:
`
`January 22, 2021
`
`Title Kaupelis v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`Present: The Honorable
`
`Douglas F. McCormick, United States Magistrate Judge
`
`Not Present
`
`
` Nancy Boehme
`
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Court Reporter
`
`
`
`Attomey(s) for PlaintiflIs):
`
`Attomey(s) for Defendant(s):
`
`
`
`Not Present
`
`Not Present
`
`Proceedings:
`
`(IN CHANIBERS) Further Order re: Plaintifi's' Motion to Compel (Dkt. 65)
`
`Plaintiffs moved to compel the production of documents and supplemental
`interrogatory responses from Defendant Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. (“HFT”). m Dkt.
`65. On August 19, 2020, I granted Plamtifls’ motion and ordered HFT to produce
`unredacted copies of certain documents and provide supplemental responses to
`Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 within 14 days. E Dkt. 95. In so doing, I rejected HFT’s
`argument that California’s Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) or third-party privacy
`concerns precluded Plaintiffs from getting the discovery they sought. E g at 1-2. I also
`concluded that the discovery sought was permissible pre-class certification discovery. E k;
`at 2-3.
`
`HFT sought review of my order. Judge Selna dismissed HFT’s privacy arguments,
`rejecting I-IFT’s argument that the CCPA and the California Constitution required the use
`of Belaire-West notices. m Dkt. 139 at 3-5. But Judge Selna found persuasive HFT’s
`argument that my conclusion that the discovery was relevant to class certification was no
`longer valid considering his recent order granting class certification in part. E ii at 5-6.
`Judge Selna accordingly vacated the August 19 order and remanded the motion to me for
`reconsideration in light of his class certification order. E Q at 6.
`
`On October 19, 2020, I ordered the parties to meet-and-confer about Judge Selna’s
`order, determine whether any dispute continued to exist, and if so, submit additional
`supplemental briefs of no more than 10 pages. E Dkt. 143. The case was subsequently
`stayed briefly while HFT filed a Rule 23(1) petition. fl Dkt. 145. After the stay was lifted, I
`held a telephone conference with the parties at which we discussed the remaining issues,
`and I asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs by no later than January 20, 2021. The
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk: nb
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 158 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:7106
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
`parties did so. See Dkt. 154, 155. I held a brief hearing with counsel on January 21, 2021,
`and I now rule as follows:
`
`The remaining dispute involves whether HFT should be required to provide
`supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14, which Plaintiffs describe as asking
`for “who complained about the chainsaw defect at issue here, and when.” Dkt. 154 at 2.
`HFT makes three arguments. First, HFT argues that the information sought is “irrelevant
`and . . . duplicative.” Second, HFT argues that producing information about non-class
`members would violate their right to privacy. And third, HFT argues that Plaintiffs have
`documents in their possession that provide the information and that under Rule 33(d) it’s
`their burden to compile the information they seek.
`
`The second and third arguments can be quickly dismissed. As an initial matter,
`neither argument appears to be within the scope of why my August 19 decision was
`remanded to me, which was “for consideration in light of the Court’s grant of class
`certification.” HFT’s privacy arguments have already been rejected twice, first by me and
`then by Judge Selna. It’s hard to fathom why they continue to be made.1 And HFT’s Rule
`33(d) argument is misplaced. If HFT wants to identify under Rule 33(d) documents that
`contain responsive information to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 it may do so. It has not.
`Identifying that its document production is only 4,500 pages or so does not comply with
`Rule 33(d), which requires a party to identify specific records, not just point to its document
`production in general and say, “it’s in there.”2
`
`That leaves HFT’s relevance argument. My prior order focused on class certification
`issues because the pre-certification discovery requires a showing that the discovery is likely
`to produce substantiation of the class allegations. But now a class has been certified, so if
`anything, the scope of discovery is less proscribed. Nevertheless, HFT argues that answering
`Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14 would require it to provide information about non-class
`members. In response, Plaintiffs argue that non-class members (such as consumers in
`Florida or New York, states not included in the class definition) may have information
`about HFT’s knowledge of the defect, an issue made relevant by various of HFT’s
`
`1 At the hearing on January 21, HFT’s counsel expressly asked that I state in my
`order that complying with the Court’s order would not be a basis for liability under the
`CCPA. I decline to do so.
`
`2 “[U]nder Rule 33(d), the responding party chooses to produce business records in
`answer to the interrogatories—not to avoid answering them. To answer an interrogatory, ‘a
`responding party has the duty to specify, by category and location, the records from which
`answers to interrogatories can be derived.’” O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 185 F.R.D.
`272, 277 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Rainbow Pioneer No. 44-18-04A v. Hawaii-Nevada
`Investment Corp., 711 F.2d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1983)).
`
`CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk: nb
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 158 Filed 01/22/21 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:7107
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
`affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs also argue that such non-class members may have
`information that rebuts HFT’s attack on Plaintiffs’ credibility and their expert witness’s
`opinions. I agree with Plaintiffs. I am satisfied that these non-class members may have
`information that is relevant to the claims and defenses at issue.
`
`Accordingly, HFT is ORDERED to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory
`Nos. 13 and 14 within 14 days of the date of this order.
`
`
`
`CV-90 (12/02)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
`
`Initials of Deputy Clerk: nb
`Page 3 of 3
`
`
`