`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
