Katrina Menell v. Rialto Unified School District et al

Filing 25

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato: granting 24 Motion to Compel (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 15-2124-VAP (KKx)

Date: June 20, 2016

Title: Katrina Menell v. Rialto Unified School District, et al.

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEB TAYLOR

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Dkt. 24]

On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff Katrina Menell (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel
Defendant Rialto Unified School District (“Defendant”) to provide (a) supplemental responses
to Requests for Admission Nos. 3, 4, 7 through 13, 15, 17, and 20; (b) supplemental responses to
Requests for Production Nos. 10 through 18; (c) verified supplemental responses to
Interrogatories Nos. 7 through 14; and (d) a verification for all Interrogatory responses (“Motion
to Compel”). ECF Docket No. (“dkt.”) 24, Joint Stipulation (“JS”). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. The hearing set for June 30, 2016 is
hereby VACATED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On October 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging Defendant “discriminated
against her on the basis of her disability, by failing and refusing to ensure the accessibility of the
public facilities at Rialto High School (‘High School’), in violation of federal and state antidiscrimination statutes.” Dkt. 1, Compl. at ¶ 1.
On February 5, 2016, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Requests
for Production, and Interrogatories. Dkt. 24-1, Declaration of Isabel Rose Masanque in support
of Motion to Compel (“Masanque Decl.”), ¶ 2.
Page 1 of 8

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

On April 6, 2016, Defendant “served unverified responses, several of which consisted of
only objections.” Id. at ¶ 3. On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a
letter identifying the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. 3.
On June 1, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel met and conferred. Id. at ¶
6. Defendant’s counsel agreed to consider providing supplemental responses, but would need
additional time. Id.
On June 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel. Dkt. 24, JS. As of June 9,
2016, Defendant had not provided any supplemental responses. Id. at ¶ 7. Neither party filed
supplemental briefing.
The Fact Discovery Cut-Off in this action is July 5, 2016 and trial is set to begin on
October 25, 2016. See dkt. 16, Scheduling Order.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure effective December 1, 2015
emphasize that “[t]he parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the
proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26 advisory committee notes (2015 amendments). Thus, there is “a shared responsibility on all
the parties to consider the factors bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery
requests, issuing responses and objections, or raising discovery disputes before the courts.”
Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 14-CV-02096-RS (MEJ), 2016 WL 736213, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 25, 2016); Goes Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., No. 14-CV-05666-LB, 2016 WL 427369, at *4
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (citing advisory committee notes for proposition that parties share a
“collective responsibility” to consider proportionality and requiring that “[b]oth parties . . .
tailor their efforts to the needs of th[e] case”); Razo v. Timec Co., Inc., No. 15-CV-03414-MEJ,
2016 WL 1623938, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016) (same). Moreover, “Rule 1 is amended to
emphasize that just as the court should construe and administer these rules to secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, so the parties share the responsibility to
employ the rules in the same way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 advisory committee notes (2015
amendments).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may obtain discovery
regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in

Page 2 of 8

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” Id. A court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed”
if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from
some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party
seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action;
or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C).
“[G]eneral or boilerplate objections such as ‘overly burdensome and harassing’ are
improper – especially when a party fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such
objections.” A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006)
(citations omitted) (faulting defendant for making “boilerplate objections to almost every single
request for production, including broad relevancy objections, objections of ‘overly burdensome
and harassing,’ ‘assumes facts not in evidence,’ privacy, and attorney-client privilege/work
product protection”).
“A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, . . . production,
or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure,
answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(4).
Lastly, pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, a party’s failure to oppose a motion may be deemed
consent to the granting of the motion. L.R. 7-12.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
1.

Relevant Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4) requires a party responding to requests for
admission state the grounds of any objection and answer as follows:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in
detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must
fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a
party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify
the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert
lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the

Page 3 of 8

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows
or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
Id.
2.

Additional Background Regarding Requests For Admission Nos. 3, 4, 7-13,
17, and 20

Defendant responded with only objections to Requests for Admission Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8
on the grounds the requests are compound, vague and ambiguous. JS at 4-13.
In response to Requests for Admission Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, Defendant objected on the
grounds the requests are vague, but stated “defendant is currently unable to admit or deny this
admission as it is in the process of checking with its facilities director to determine whether the
item requested was in existence on the date in question.” Id. at 8-10.
In response to Requests for Admission Nos. 17 and 20, Defendant objected on the
grounds the requests are vague and ambiguous, call for an expert opinion and legal conclusion,
“potentially violate[] the attorney-client privilege and or attorney work product privilege,” and
are unduly burdensome. Id. at 12-13. Defendant then responded that it is “unable to admit or
deny because it does not understand what is meant by ‘administrative burden.’” Id.
Plaintiff argues Defendant’s objections are meritless. Id. at 4-13. Defendant’s sole
response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is that it “intends to provide a supplemental response
no later than June 24, 2016.” Id.
3.

Analysis Regarding Requests For Admission Nos. 3, 4, 7-13, 17, and 20

With respect to Requests for Admission Nos. 3, 4, 7 through 13, 17 and 20, the Court first
finds Defendant’s boilerplate objections and failure to timely conduct a diligent search improper.
Second, the Court deems Defendant’s failure to oppose the Motion to Compel consent to
granting the motion. See L.R. 7-12. Further, Defendant was served with the discovery requests
on February 5, 2016. There does not appear to be any justification for Defendant’s failure to
properly respond until almost five months later and only ten days before the discovery cut-off.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel supplemental responses without
objection to Requests for Admission Nos. 3, 4, 7 through 13, 17 and 20 is GRANTED.
4.

Additional Background Regarding Request For Admission No. 15

The sole Request for Admission Defendant opposes providing a supplemental response
for is No. 15. Request for Admission No. 15 states: “Admit that prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s
Complaint you did not evaluate the High School’s facilities to identify access barriers for people
with disabilities who use wheelchairs.” JS at 11. In response to Request for Admission No. 15,
Page 4 of 8

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

Defendant objects on the grounds the “request is vague, ambiguous, over-broad and
unintelligible as phrased as to the term ‘access barriers.’ Additionally the request calls for a legal
conclusion and assumes facts.” Id. In the Joint Stipulation, Defendant stands by its objections
on the grounds that the request “assumes that [D]efendant had a legal obligation to check for
access barriers after the initial construction of the school.” Id. at 12. Plaintiff argues the request
is not so burdensome or costly as to outweigh its benefits and a request seeking an application of
law to fact is within the scope of discovery. Id.
5.

Analysis Regarding Request for Admission No. 15

Defendant’s argument regarding Request for Admission No. 15 is meritless. The request
solely asks whether Defendant conducted an evaluation of the High School’s facilities. Whether
Defendant had a legal obligation to conduct an evaluation has nothing to do with whether
Defendant did, in fact, do so. Nor does the term “access barriers” render the request vague and
ambiguous. If Defendant checked for some access barriers and not others, it must admit or deny
in part as appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a supplemental response without
objection to Request for Admission No. 15 is GRANTED.
B.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
1. Relevant Law

Responses to requests for production “must be complete, explicit and responsive. If a
party cannot furnish details, he should say so under oath, say why and set forth the efforts he
used to obtain the information. He cannot plead ignorance to information that is from sources
within his control.” Hash v. Cate, No. C 08-03729 MMC (DMR), 2012 WL 6043966, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012). The requesting party “is entitled to individualized, complete
responses to each of the requests . . ., accompanied by production of each of the documents
responsive to the request, regardless of whether the documents have already been produced.”
Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, 505 (E.D. Cal. 2006).
2. Additional Background
Plaintiff’s Requests for Production seek information relating to Defendant’s efforts to
identify and remove barriers to accessibility (Nos. 10, 11); prior complaints regarding accessibility
(No. 12); and the feasibility and financial or administrative burden of removing any barriers to
accessibility (Nos. 13-18). JS at 13-19. Defendant’s Responses to Requests for Production Nos.
10 through 18 do not indicate that any documents have been produced and only provided
objections on the grounds the requests call for speculation, are vague and ambiguous, call for
expert opinion and/or legal conclusion, are overbroad and unduly burdensome, “potentially”
violate attorney client and/or work product privileges, are overbroad as to time and scope and
therefore irrelevant, and potentially invade the privacy rights of third parties. Id. Plaintiff argues
Page 5 of 8

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

Defendant’s objections are meritless. Id. Defendant’s sole response to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel is that it “intends to provide a supplemental response no later than June 24, 2016.” Id.
3. Analysis
First, Defendant’s boilerplate relevance and vagueness objections to each request are
improper and not well-taken. A. Farber and Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. at 188. Second, the Court
deems Defendant’s failure to oppose the Motion to Compel consent to granting the motion. See
L.R. 7-12. The Court notes expert analysis does not relieve Defendant of its obligation to
investigate and provide information reasonably available to it. Frontline Med. Associates, Inc. v.
Coventry Health Care, 263 F.R.D. 567, 570 (C.D. Cal. 2009). However, to the extent the request
could be interpreted as requesting expert reports, Defendant will not be required to produce such
reports in response to these Requests for Production. Additionally, in light of Defendant’s
failure to oppose the Motion to Compel, any privacy objection does not appear to be based on any
investigation or fact.1 Finally, to the extent Defendant withholds any documents on the grounds
of attorney client privilege, it must provide a privilege log pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(5).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel supplemental
responses to Requests for Production Nos. 10 through 18.
C.

INTERROGATORIES
1. Relevant Law

“Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and
fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an
interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is
waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Finally,
responses to interrogatories must be verified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5) (“The person who makes
the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections.”).
2. Additional Background
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories seek information relating to Defendant’s efforts to identify and
remove barriers to accessibility (Nos. 8, 9); prior complaints regarding accessibility (No. 7); and
the feasibility and financial or administrative burden of removing any barriers to accessibility
(Nos. 10-14). JS at 20-25. Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories only provided objections on
the grounds the interrogatories call for speculation, are vague and ambiguous, call for expert
opinion and/or legal conclusion, are overbroad and unduly burdensome, “potentially” violate
1

The Court further notes Defendant’s privacy objections could easily have been
remedied with a proper protective order.
Page 6 of 8

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

attorney client and/or work product privileges, are overbroad as to time and scope and therefore
irrelevant, and potentially invade the privacy rights of third parties. Id. Plaintiff argues
Defendant’s objections are meritless. Id. Defendant’s sole response to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel is that it “intends to provide a supplemental response no later than June 24, 2016.” Id.
3. Analysis
Once again, the Court finds Defendant’s boilerplate relevance and vagueness objections
to each interrogatory are improper and not well taken. A. Farber and Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D.
at 188. Second, the Court deems Defendant’s failure to oppose the Motion to Compel consent to
granting the motion. See L.R. 7-12. Further, as previously stated: (1) expert analysis does not
relieve Defendant of its obligation to investigate and provide information reasonably available to
it. Frontline Med. Associates, Inc., 263 F.R.D. at 570; (2) Defendant’s privacy objection does
not appear to be based on any investigation or fact; and (3) to the extent Defendant withholds any
information on the grounds of attorney client privilege, it must provide a privilege log pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel verified
supplemental responses without objection to Interrogatories Nos. 7 through 14. To the
extent Defendant provided any substantive responses to other Interrogatories, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a verification of such responses.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing reasons and Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition, IT IS
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED.2

(2)
Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall provide the
following to Plaintiff:
(a) Supplemental responses without objection to Requests for Admission Nos. 3,
4, 7 through 13, 15, 17 and 20;
(b) Supplemental responses to Requests for Production Nos. 10 through 18;

2

The Court cautions the parties that sanctions are generally mandatory where the motion
is granted, or denied in its entirety. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) and (B). Additionally, sanctions
are available when the parties fail to adequately comply with the applicable Local Rules (e.g.,
Local Rule 37-1’s requirement of an adequate pre-filing conference of counsel). Local Rule 37-4.
Page 7 of 8

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __

(c) Verified supplemental responses without objection to Interrogatories Nos. 7
through 14; and
(d) Verification of all substantive Interrogatory responses.

Page 8 of 8

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk __