The opinion of the court was delivered by: Henry S. Perkin, United States Magistrate Judge
The instant discovery issue before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel non-party Ceridian Corporation ("Ceridian") to produce documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (Dkt. No. 90).*fn1 Following extensive briefing and telephonic conferences placed on the record, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs filed their consolidated Amended Complaint on May 1, 2007. Ceridian was initially named as a party to this case based solely on alter-ego and agency theory. On June 22, 2007, Ceridian filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint as to Ceridian. Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss Ceridian from the case without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to amend and rename Ceridian as a defendant and toll the statute of limitations. On October 18, 2007, the parties executed and submitted a Stipulation and Order dismissing Ceridian without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to amend and rename Ceridian as a Defendant and toll the statute of limitations. The Honorable James Knoll Gardner, the presiding District Court Judge, approved the stipulation on December 18, 2007. The stipulation included the following: Ceridian agreed to preserve documents and other materials relevant to this litigation to the same extent as if Ceridian were still a party to the litigation; to respond in good faith to reasonable requests for third party discovery related to this case, and in addition, not interpose objections to discovery requests (as a non-party) for the purpose of delaying production of documents or witnesses past the deadline for amending the complaint contained in the operative scheduling order; that service of subpoenas on Ceridian's counsel in Philadelphia constituted service of process on Ceridian and/or any of its current employees under applicable rules and law; and that Ceridian will submit to the jurisdiction of this Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for resolution of discovery disputes relating to subpoenas that Plaintiffs serve upon Ceridian or Ceridian employees.
On February 20, 2008, the amended stipulated protective order governing the use and handling of documents, electronic information in any form, testimony, interrogatory responses and other information in pre-trial proceedings in this litigation was approved.
On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Third Party, Ceridian Corporation, to Comply with Subpoena and Produce Responsive Electronically Stored Information ("ESI"). Because no Response to the Motion was filed on or before January 6, 2009, this Court granted the Motion to Compel as unopposed on January 16, 2009. The Order was docketed at 4:30 p.m. That same day at 6:00 p.m., Ceridian filed the Response in Opposition to the Motion to Compel. On January 26, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to the Response to the Motion to Compel.
On January 30, 2009, this Court vacated the January 16, 2009 Order granting the Motion to Compel as unopposed because counsel failed to advise the Court that Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to an extension until January 16, 2009 for Ceridian to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion. Plaintiffs filed their Reply Memorandum of Law on January 26, 2009. On February 17, 2009, Ceridian was ordered to submit, on or before Friday, February 20, 2009, a detailed summary of its incurred and anticipated costs to comply with the subpoena divided into paper discovery and electronic discovery. On February 20, 2009, Ceridian filed its Statement of Estimate and Summary of Incurred and Anticipated Discovery Related Costs. On February 23, 2009, Plaintiffs were ordered to submit, on or before March 9, 2009, a Response Brief to Ceridian's Cost Estimate and Summary. On March 2, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Response in Support of the Motion to Compel. On March 10, 2009, Ceridian filed a Reply to the Response.
On April 17, 209, Ceridian's counsel submitted a letter to Chambers. Plaintiffs' counsel submitted a letter in response on April 21, 2009, to which Ceridian's counsel replied in correspondence dated April 23, 2009.
On April 27, 2009, a telephone conference was held regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Ceridian to Comply with the Subpoena and Produce Responsive ESI, Ceridian's issue with an $8000 cost per month to maintain a database, and whether Ceridian could obtain a complete, unredacted version of Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint. The telephone conference was continued on May 1, 2009.
By Order dated January 14, 2009 and by agreement of counsel, Plaintiffs had until April 6, 2009 to file a motion to amend the consolidated Amended Complaint to add claims, theories, or new parties. On April 6, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the consolidated Amended Complaint which would add the TA group of Defendants and Ceridian as Defendants.
On May 21, 2009, Plaintiffs initiated Civil Action 09-cv-2327 by filing a Class Action Complaint against Ceridian, the TA group of Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, L.P., Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Pilot Corporation and Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores. On April 23, 2009 and May 4, 2009, the TA group of Defendants and Ceridian, respectively, sought to intervene in the 2007 action for the limited purpose of opposing Plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Judge Gardner entered a number of orders on March 24, 2010, including: (1) consolidating Civil Action No. 09-cv-2327 into Civil Action No. 07-cv-1078 and dismissing from the 09-2327 case without prejudice the pending Motions to Dismiss of Ceridian, TA, Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., and Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Pilot Corporation; (2) denying the motions to intervene of Ceridian and TA for the limited purpose of opposing Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend; and (3) granting Plaintiffs leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on or before April 7, 2010, encompassing all claims and defendants in the 2009 case.
A. Plaintiff's Motion ...