1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 SELINA KEENE, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01587-JSW (RMI) 9 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S

10 v. PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN

11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN AND CONSOLIDATED CASES1 FRANCISCO, et al., 12 Re: Dkt. No. 125 Defendants. 13 14 Now pending before the court in these consolidated and related cases is a dispute related to 15 Defendant City and County’s (hereafter, “Defendant”) proposed discovery plan. Given that the 16 Vaccine Cases have been consolidated up to and including the court’s ruling on summary 17 judgment motions (including, of course, consolidation for the purposes of discovery) (see dkt. 90 18 at 3), Defendant submitted a discovery plan such as to coordinate the discovery process in a 19 centralized fashion that would avoid duplicative discovery requests or disputes, wastage of judicial 20 resources, and the unnecessary burdening of any party (see generally dkt. 125). The court then 21 solicited Plaintiffs’ respective positions and offered an opportunity for any objections to be filed 22 (see dkt. 136 at 27-28; and, dkt. 139). Thereafter, various objections were submitted (see dkts. 23 24 1 The above-styled case is the lead case in a group of consolidated and related cases (hereafter collectively referred to as the “Vaccine Cases”). The currently-pending consolidated cases are: 4:22-cv-03975-JSW, 4:22- 25 cv-04319-JSW, 4:22-cv-07455-JSW, 4:22-cv-07645-JSW, 4:22-cv-06013-JSW, 4:23-cv-00211-JSW, and 4:23-cv-03139-JSW. The related cases are 4:22-cv-09045-JSW and 4:23-cv-03643-JSW. The order granting 26 limited consolidation was filed in Keane et al., 4:22-cv-01587-JSW; therein, the court clarified that any subsequent case filed in the District that is determined to be related to the consolidated cases shall likewise 27 be subject to the terms of the limited consolidation order (see dkt. 90 at 3, n.2). The consolidation order also stated that all such cases shall proceed with the same discovery and motion schedule through summary 1 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 141). Having considered Defendant’s proposed discovery plan, and 2 having considered all of the objections thereto, the court finds Defendant’s proposal to be 3 reasonable. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for the adoption of its proposed discovery plan is 4 GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ objections thereto are OVERRULED. 5 Courts are vested with the discretion to limit the entire scope of discovery to take account 6 of issues such as the conservation of the Parties’ resources and the balancing of the burden or 7 expense of proposed discovery in light of its likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This 8 discretion similarly applies to the imposition of limitations on the frequency and extent of any 9 individual facet of discovery – such as altering the limits on the number of depositions and 10 interrogatories under Rule 30, or the length of depositions, or the number of requests under Rule 11 36. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). The court finds that the discovery plan – as set forth below – 12 would save substantial time and resources for all involved, given the significant overlap that is 13 anticipated in discovery amongst the consolidated and related cases. The court further finds that 14 the plan set forth below will also serve to promote judicial convenience and economy in 15 streamlining and centralizing discovery disputes, and rendering them more amenable to efficient 16 resolution – rather than, for example, forcing the court to repeatedly pass upon substantially 17 similar disputes as presented in piecemeal and serial fashion by individual Plaintiffs. See e.g., 18 Long v. Las Vegas Valley Water Dist., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119234, *5-6 (D. Nev. Sept. 4, 19 2015) (consolidated for purposes of discovery in order promote judicial convenience and 20 economy). The discovery STAY previously entered by the undersigned is hereby DISSOLVED. 21 Discovery shall now proceed in accordance with the discovery plan set forth herein. All previously 22 propounded discovery requests and deadlines are rendered null by virtue of this Order. 23 As to written discovery, court ORDERS as follows: 24 1. Defendant reports that during the April 28, 2023, case management conference, the 25 Court endorsed the idea that the parties exchange questionnaires in lieu of traditional written 26 discovery requests. Defendant further reports that it has provided a draft proposed questionnaire 27 for Plaintiffs’ review, with the hope that the Parties can come to an agreement with respect to the 1 objections to information sought in Defendant’s questionnaire that cannot be resolved informally 2 between the parties, such disputes shall be submitted to the undersigned for resolution by way of a 3 jointly-filed letter brief in advance of the timeline for providing a response thereto. Counsel for 4 Plaintiffs shall work together to jointly create a similar questionnaire with respect to the 5 information and materials that will be sought by all Plaintiffs from Defendant. Similarly, if any 6 dispute arises as to the contents of Plaintiffs’ jointly-prepared questionnaire, such dispute shall be 7 submitted to the undersigned for resolution by way of a jointly-filed letter brief in advance of a 8 timeline for any response from Defendant. 9 2. The court finds that the use of the questionnaires described above eliminates the need for 10 multiple sets of interrogatories and requests for production of documents, the Parties’ need to draft 11 objections to such overlapping requests, the minimization of the need for discovery-related 12 motions’ practice, and – as such – the court’s need to potentially be presented with substantially 13 similar and repetitive disputes arising therefrom. The Parties shall be permitted to reserve 14 objections for responses to questionnaires until such time as the information may otherwise be 15 used in evidence, if necessary. 16 3. Once completed and finalized – and any disputes thereto having been resolved by the 17 court – the Parties shall have 60 days to respond to a questionnaire. Upon a showing of good 18 cause, the court will consider permitting a second set of questionnaires, and/or limited additional 19 written discovery individualized to particular Plaintiffs’ factual circumstances or claims if 20 necessary. 21 4. For individualized discovery, each Plaintiff may presumptively propound ten (10) 22 Requests for Productions of Documents; ten (10) Requests for Admissions (exclusive of Requests 23 seeking the genuineness/authentication of documents); and ten (10) Interrogatories. Should 24 additional written discovery become necessary, the Parties shall meet and confer regarding the 25 matter, and if the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute informally, they will seek the court’s 26 assistance through a jointly-filed letter brief. 27 5. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall meet and confer forthwith in an effort to appoint or elect a 1 Plaintiffs’ questionnaire, on coordinating with the other Plaintiffs to consolidate questions, and 2 with respect to deposition scheduling and priority. 3 As to depositions, the court ORDERS as follows: 4 6. Defendant shall make available up to ten (10) depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of 5 Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) in the Consolidated Cases, in accordance with the parameters set by 6 Judge White in the parties’ initial status conference – the limits of which will be as follows. A 7 limit of up to five (5) fact witness (i.e., non-corporate witness) depositions shall be permitted with 8 respect to each Plaintiff. For corporate or fact witnesses selected who are relevant to either ten 9 (10) or more Plaintiffs OR three (3) or more cases (e.g., the City’s Director of Human Resources, 10 human resources personnel for large departments such as the PUC, Police, and Fire, a person 11 designated to discuss the exemption review process), Defendant will make such witnesses 12 available for two (2) full days of deposition of up to seven (7) hours of deposition testimony time 13 each day. For all other fact witnesses, depositions will be limited to one day of seven (7) hours 14 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. Written discovery shall be completed prior to 15 depositions. Accordingly, deposition notices are not to be served with requests for production of 16 documents. 17 7. In the event that any Party seeks to conduct early depositions – that is, before the 18 completion of written discovery – and assuming that the opponent is/are amenable, re-examination 19 of such a witness (i.e., one who was deposed before the completion of written discovery) shall be 20 prohibited. 21 8. Plaintiffs’ liaison counsel will coordinate the timing of depositions so the Parties can 22 attend. Reasonable efforts shall be made to schedule such depositions on a date and time agreeable 23 to most, if not all, Parties during regular business hours. The depositions will be so limited: no 24 more than two (2) depositions per day, and no more than eight (8) depositions per week. 25 9. Liaison counsel shall coordinate amongst the various Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the 26 order in which each set of attorneys will take deposition time for each witness. 27 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: September 11, 2023 3 4

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28