Patriot Rail Corp. v. Sierra Railroad Company

Filing 244

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/23/12 ORDERING Sierra's Motion to Compel Supplemental Discovery 201 is accordingly DENIED. Sierra's request for sanctions against Patriot, as well as Patriot's own request for sanct ions, are also denied. Given the impending February 2013 trial, the parties are advised to focus their attention on preparing for that trial rather than to continue the interminable, and vituperative, motion proceedings that have plagued this matter virtually from its onset. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRIOT RAIL CORP., a
Delaware corporation,,

No. 2:09-cv-00009-MCE-EFB

12
Plaintiff,
13
ORDER

v.
14
15

SIERRA RAILROAD COMPANY,
a California corporation,

16

Defendant.
______________________________

17
18
19

And Related Counterclaim.
______________________________
Defendant and Counterclaimant Sierra Railroad Company

20

(“Sierra”) request, through the motion presently before the

21

Court, an Order compelling supplemental responses to discovery

22

previously propounded upon Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Patriot

23

Rail Corp. (“Patriot”).

24

information demonstrating that Patriot has failed to supplement

25

existing discovery responses and has failed to provide the

26

requested supplemental responses when confronted by Sierra about

27

the information it obtained which indicated that supplementation

28

was in fact necessary.

Sierra claims to have discovered

1

1

Sierra correctly points out that under Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 26(e)(1)(A), parties to litigation have a duty to

3

supplement disclosure and discovery if a party “learns that in

4

some material respect [its] previous disclosure or response is

5

incomplete and incorrect.”

6

party’s possession after an earlier document request for such

7

documents, for example, must be disclosed.

8

Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2001).

Documents discovered or coming into a

See United States v.

9

Sierra premises the instant Motion to Compel on Patriot’s

10

alleged failure to formally supplement its discovery responses

11

when confronted with specific documents obtained by Sierra’s

12

damages expert, Forrest Vickery.

13

those documents plainly triggered an obligation on Patriot’s part

14

to provide additional responses, Patriot nonetheless declined to

15

do so.

16

provide supplemental responses updating its initial disclosures

17

as well as each of the discovery requests served on it during the

18

course of this litigation.”

19

requests that it be awarded sanctions on grounds that the Motion

20

now before the Court “never should have been necessary.”

21

5:8.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

According to Sierra, while

Sierra consequently asks that “the Court order Patriot to

Sierra’s Mot., 5:6-8.

2

Sierra also

Id. at

1

Patriot, in response, while not disputing its obligation to

2

provide supplemental responses as necessary, argues that Sierra

3

failed to complete the requisite meet and confer process before

4

bringing the motion before the undersigned after Sierra’s initial

5

motion before the assigned Magistrate Judge was rejected as

6

untimely.1

7

however, that on February 7, 2012, two days before the present

8

motion was brought in this Court, it told Sierra that it would be

9

producing additional updated documents to supplement its

Patriot’s counsel has represented to the Court,

10

discovery responses and disclosures.

Counsel for Patriot have

11

represented that it did provide the promised supplemental

12

responses on February 15, 2012, followed by the production of

13

additional documents on February 23, 2012.

14

Decl., ¶ 7, 9.

15

has been rendered moot by that supplemental production.

See Tolentino Meehan

Patriot therefore claims that the present motion

16

The Court will construe Ms. Meehan’s declaration as her

17

representation, under penalty of perjury, that all necessary

18

supplemental responses and/or documents have been made on behalf

19

of Patriot.

20

sanctions if that representation is later determined to be

21

incorrect.

22

Ms. Meehan’s representation at face value.

Patriot and/or Ms. Meehan will be subject to

At this juncture, however, the Court must take

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Magistrate Judge rejected the Motion solely on grounds
that he lacked jurisdiction over any discovery dispute once the
discovery deadline set forth in this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling
Order had passed. The Magistrate Judge made no ruling with
respect to the merits of the instant dispute. The present motion
was properly refiled here because it pertains to additional
discovery obligations that extend beyond the close of ordinary
discovery, and accordingly must be brought before the District
Judge.
3

1

Her claim that the discovery responses have in fact been

2

“properly supplemented” (id. at ¶ 9) indeed makes the instant

3

motion moot.

4

Sierra’s Motion to Compel Supplemental Discovery (ECF

5

No. 201) is accordingly DENIED.2

6

against Patriot, as well as Patriot’s own request for sanctions,

7

are also denied.

8

parties are advised to focus their attention on preparing for

9

that trial rather than to continue the interminable, and

Sierra’s request for sanctions

Given the impending February 2013 trial, the

10

vituperative, motion proceedings that have plagued this matter

11

virtually from its onset.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 23, 2012

14
15

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the
Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.
Local Rule 230(g).
4