Hansford v. Solano County Department of Health and Human Services

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/17/2011 GRANTING 30 Pltf's motion to compel; pltf is awarded $2,520 as reasonable expenses pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5).3; dft shall pay the award directly to pltf or pltf's counse l within 45 days of the date of this order and notify the court in writing within 7 days of such payment; GRANTING 32 dft's motion to withdraw its deemed admissions; GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART 39 dft's Motion for Protective Order; pltf's and dft's respective requests for an award of expenses and/or sanctions in connection with dft's motion for a protective order are DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

NATHAN HANSFORD,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. 2:08-cv-02232 MCE KJN

v.

14

SOLANO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES1 and
DOES ONE THROUGH FIFTY, inclusive,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER
/

Three discovery-related motions are presently before the court2: (1) plaintiff’s

17
18

motion to compel responses to his first set of interrogatories and requests for production of

19

documents, to which defendant failed to provide responses for over one year (Dkt. No. 30);

20

(2) defendant’s motion to withdraw its deemed admissions to plaintiffs’ first and second set of

21

requests for admissions, which resulted from defendant’s failure to respond to plaintiffs’

22

discovery for over one year (Dkt. No. 32); and (3) defendant’s motion for a protective order,

23
24

1

At the hearing conducted by the undersigned on June 16, 2011, defendant’s counsel
clarified that its correct name is “Solano County Department of Health and Social Services.”

25
2

26

This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

which seeks an order protecting defendant from responding to plaintiff’s requests for production

2

numbered 34 through 39, interrogatories numbered 13 through 15, and request for admission

3

number 15 (Dkt. No. 39). Also before the court are the parties’ respective requests for the award

4

of discovery-related expenses and/or sanctions. The undersigned heard this matter on its law and

5

motion calendar on June 16, 2011. (Minutes, Dkt. No. 59.) Attorney Wendy E. Musell appeared

6

on behalf of plaintiffs. Attorney Peter D. Halloran appeared on behalf of defendant.

7
8

In consideration of the parties’ voluminous filings and for the reasons stated on
the record at the June 16, 2011 hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 30) is granted, and defendant is

10

deemed to have waived its objections to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and requests for

11

production of documents, except as described below in regards to defendant’s motion for

12

protective order. Within 30 days of the date of this order, defendant shall serve amended

13

responses to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents

14

without objections except as described below, and shall also produce documents and other

15

materials that are responsive to plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production, except as

16

narrowed below.

17

2.

In regards to plaintiff’s motion to compel, plaintiff’s request for the award

18

of reasonable expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) is granted.

19

Defendant only responded to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and requests for production

20

after plaintiff was forced to file a motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) (“If the motion

21

[to compel] is granted—or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion

22

was filed—the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent

23

whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay

24

the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. ”).

25

In consideration of plaintiff’s counsel’s declarations in support of plaintiff’s motion to compel,

26

////
2

1

plaintiff is awarded $2,520 as reasonable expenses pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5).3 Defendant shall

2

pay the award directly to plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel within 45 days of the date of this order

3

and notify the court in writing within seven days of such payment.

4

3.

Defendant’s motion to withdraw its deemed admissions (Dkt. No. 32) is

5

granted. Defendant’s responses to plaintiff’s first and second set of requests for admissions,

6

served on or around May 18, 2011, are deemed timely served. As discussed more fully at the

7

hearing, plaintiff may file a subsequent motion for the award of reasonable expenses, including

8

attorney’s fees and costs, incurred as a result of plaintiff’s legitimate need to “redo” discovery as

9

a direct result of the withdrawal of defendant’s deemed admissions. As the undersigned

10

indicated at the hearing, any such request will be heavily scrutinized by the court, and plaintiff

11

should only seek this relief if he has a good faith basis to do so. Any abuse of this provision may

12

result in the imposition of sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel.

13

4.

14

and denied in part. Specifically:

15

Defendant’s motion for a protective order (Dkt. No. 39) is granted in part

a.

Defendant shall respond and produce personnel-related documents

16

and other materials requested in plaintiff’s requests for production numbered 34 through 39,

17

except that defendant shall be permitted to redact any home address information, and any health,

18

tax, credit, and social security related information pertaining to the subject of the personnel file.

19

Defendant’s production shall be made pursuant to the parties’ “Stipulation and Proposed Order”

20

protecting personnel documents, which was previously executed by the parties and approved by

21

the court on July 1, 2009. (Stip. & Proposed Order, July 1, 2009, Dkt. No. 19.) To the extent

22

necessary, the parties may also enter into a further stipulated protective order and seek approval

23
24
25
26

3

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration in support of its motion to compel “seeks sanctions in
the amount of $2,520, for the seven hours Plaintiff’s counsel has expended in attorney time
having to oppose this motion.” (Musell Decl. ¶ 27 (emphasis added), June 10, 2011, Dkt.
No. 55.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation regarding fees incurred in having to “oppose”
plaintiff’s motion to compel appears to be an inadvertent misstatement.
3

1

of the same pursuant to Local Rule 141.1.

2

b.

Defendant has no obligation to further respond to plaintiff’s

3

request for admission number 15. This protection is subject to re-visitation by the court on a

4

good-faith motion brought by plaintiff.

5

c.

Defendant shall respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories numbered 13

6

through 15 as narrowed here.4 Defendant’s amended responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories 13

7

through 15 shall provide plaintiff with: (1) the identities of those employees within Solano

8

County’s Department of Health and Social Services who were granted flexible work schedules;

9

(2) the nature of the flexible work schedule; and (3) the general reason for the accommodation,

10

without the disclosure of any individual’s specific religious belief if a religious belief served as

11

the basis for the work schedule accommodation. Defendant’s responses shall encompass the

12

time period of October 20, 2004, through the end of the year 2010. Defendant’s production shall

13

be made pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order approved by the court on July 1,

14

2009. However, to the extent that the parties’ stipulated protective order only applies to

15

document productions and not responses to interrogatories, the parties may enter into a further

16

stipulated protective order and seek approval of the same pursuant to Local Rule 141.1.

17
18

5.

and/or sanctions in connection with defendant’s motion for a protective order are denied.

19
20

Plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective requests for an award of expenses

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 17, 2011

21
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26

4

Plaintiff expressed no objection to defendant’s response to interrogatory 13 on its face.
His objection concerned the breadth of the resulting responses to interrogatories 14 and 15,
which are tied to the response to interrogatory 13.
4