IntusCare, Inc. v. RTZ Associates, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INTUS CARE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-01132-JST (AGT)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 106
1. The Court denies Intus’s request to compel RTZ to produce additional documents
in response to RFPs 28–81 and 100–101. RTZ insists that it has “produced all responsive,
non-privileged documents for the [PACE] facilities actually identified in Intus’ requests
[RFPs 28–81], as well as all communications referencing Intus pursuant to RFPs Nos. 100
and 101.” Dkt. 106 at 5. The Court cannot order RTZ to produce documents that don’t exist.
2. The Court denies Intus’s request to “order RTZ to meet and confer with Intus to
agree on search terms and proceed with a centralized email pull using those terms.” Id. at 3.
As noted above, RTZ says it has produced all responsive, non-privileged documents. There
is no need, then, for a discussion about search terms and a centralized email pull.
Even if there was a need for such a discussion, it should have happened a long time
ago. “Rule 26 makes clear that the scope of ESI production should be addressed at the be-
ginning of discovery.” Hardin v. Mendocino Coast Dist. Hosp., No. 17-CV-05554-JST
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 113 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 2

2
(TSH), 2019 WL 4256383, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)). The
parties may refine their search parameters and methodologies as discovery proceeds, but
they need to do so well in advance of the discovery close. Here, as in Hardin, “[f]act discov-
ery is over.” Id. at *2. “It’s too late to start a negotiation over how many custodians’ emails
will be searched. It’s too late to propose search terms to the Defendants and to ask them to
see how many hits each one generates.” Id.
3. Intus reports that certain Google Drive messages that RTZ produced “contain links
that are not accessible.” Dkt. 106 at 3. Intus provided RTZ with a list of these messages by
bates number. Id. at 46–47. By April 22, 2026, RTZ must produce the linked material.
4. Intus says that certain email chains RTZ produced appear “to abruptly end without
any follow-up.” Id. at 3. By April 22, 2026, RTZ must confirm in writing that it didn’t hold
back follow-up responses to these emails.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 17, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 113 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 2