`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Norfolk Division
`
`IN RE PEANUT FARMERS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19cv463
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deadlines for Defendant Clam's
`
`Document Production ("Motion to Compel") and accompanying memorandum filed on July 28,
`
`2020. ECF Nos. 193-94. Concurrently, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Expedite Briefing, ECF No.
`
`195, which the Court denied upon receipt of Clam's response. ECF No. 209. Clam filed an
`
`opposition to the Motion to Compel, ECF No. 214, and Plaintiffs filed both a redacted, ECF No.
`
`219, and unredacted (under seal) reply, ECF No. 220. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is fully
`
`briefed and ready for disposition. For the following reasons. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is
`
`DENIED.
`
`Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel alleges that despite diligent pursuit by Plaintiffs, Clam has
`
`delayed in completing its data and document productions. The Motion to Compel requests that
`
`the Court order Clam (1) to produce all structured data, custodial data, and responsive documents
`
`immediately but no later than August 7, 2020; (2) to respond to any follow-up questions Plaintiffs
`
`may raise conceming Clam's structured data within two business days of such questions; and (3)
`
`to participate in weekly case management conferences with Plaintiffs and the Court until Clam's
`
`document production issues are resolved. ECF No. 194 at 5-6. In response. Clam contends that
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 223 Filed 08/28/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 2797
`
`it has worked diligently to meet its discovery obligations since becoming a Defendant just over
`
`two months ago. ECF No. 214 at 2.01am also contends that it has agreed to substantially complete
`
`its structured data production by August 7,2020 (and has done so as of the date of this Order), and
`
`will substantially complete the remainder of its custodial document production by August 28,
`
`2020. Id. at 1. 01am also notes several offers it made to Plaintiff in order to expedite the discovery
`
`process, and to prioritize the discovery process. For example, 01am offered to stipulate to
`
`deadlines it promised Plaintiffs, indicted it was willing to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on a
`
`weekly basis regarding the status of its production, and offered to prioritize custodians and search
`
`terms upon Plaintiffs' election. Id. at 1-3. Plaintiffs yet still contend they remain prejudiced by
`
`Olam's delay. ECF No. 220.
`
`Based on the contentions by both parties, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute
`
`between Plaintiffs and 01am that warrants granting this Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs filed this
`
`motion two and a half months before the discovery cut-off, which is not to occur until October 15,
`
`2020. ECF No. 78 at 2. By this Court's review, 01am has worked, and appears to continue to
`
`work, diligently to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. 01am has provided Plaintiff with
`
`deadlines in which it will substantially complete its production, and has offered to continue to keep
`
`Plaintiffs regularly appraised on the status of its production. Court intervention in the parties
`
`ongoing discussions would be both unnecessary and a poor use of the Court's resources.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, ECF No. 193, is DENIED.
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 223 Filed 08/28/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 2798
`
`The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`Norfolk, Virginia
`August 28, 2020
`
`.awrence R. Leonard
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`