Jackson et al v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/7/15 ORDERING that Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, plaintiffs' counsel shall pay to defense counsel $980.40; and Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, plaintiffs' counsel shall file an affidavit under penalty of perjury stating that the sanction payment has been made and was not billed to plaintiffs. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS JACKSON, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:14-cv-00250-WBS-AC

ORDER

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). Currently before

18
19

the court is counsel for defendants’ declaration in support of monetary sanctions against plaintiffs

20

and plaintiffs’ counsel of $980.40 for failure to comply with the court’s January 23, 2015, order.

21

ECF No. 45.
On November 13, 2014, Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (“FIE”) filed a motion to

22
23

compel seeking both supplemental responses and supplemental production to their First Set of

24

Requests for Production. ECF No. 34. On December 15, 2014, the court granted FIE’s motion in

25

full, ordering Plaintiff TJ Auto Body Services, Inc. (“TJ’s”) to produce the agreed-upon

26

responsive documents, and supplement their responses as to any document they claimed to be

27

unavailable or protected by privilege. ECF No. 42 at 8–9. The court also granted FIE’s request

28

////
1

1

for monetary sanctions to cover the cost of bringing their motion to compel in the amount of

2

$1,634.00. Id. at 9–10.

3

When plaintiffs failed to timely comply with the discovery order, the parties agreed to

4

utilize the informal process offered by the undersigned for resolution of minor discovery

5

disagreements. On January 22, 2015, the parties submitted a joint letter in advance of a scheduled

6

telephonic conference. The letter detailed TJ’s failure to produce the agreed-upon responsive

7

documents, as well as its failure to respond to Defendant James Gillis’ First Set of Requests for

8

Production. ECF No. 44. The joint letter also included a request by defendants for additional

9

monetary sanctions against plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel of $980.40. Id. On January 23,

10

2015, counsel for the parties attended an informal telephonic conference with the undersigned.

11

ECF No. 45. That conference resulted in the issuance of a minute order requiring plaintiffs to

12

produce responsive documents pursuant to its December 15, 2014, order no later than February 6,

13

2015. Id. The court also ordered plaintiffs to produce all documents responsive to Defendant

14

Gillis’ First Set of Requests for Production and identify all documents destroyed by water damage

15

by February 6, 2015. Id. The court specified that plaintiffs’ failure to comply by the close of

16

business on February 6, 2015 would result in the imposition of monetary sanctions. Id.

17

At or after 5:00 p.m. on February 6, 2015, defendants’ counsel Monica D. Scott filed a

18

declaration averring that plaintiffs had failed to timely comply with the court’s order and

19

renewing the request for monetary sanctions of $980.40. ECF No. 46. On February 9, 2015,

20

plaintiffs’ counsel Russell A. Robinson submitted a declaration in opposition to sanctions. ECF

21

No. 47. According to Robinson, supplemental production was prepared on February 5, 2015

22

pursuant to the court’s January 23, 2015 order. Id. Robinson attaches a list of the prepared

23

documents, ECF No. 47-1, which were “being produced” on February 6, 2015. ECF No. 47.

24

Robinson also declares that responses to Defendant Gillis’ First Set of Requests for Production

25

were drafted on February 1, 2015. Id. Robinson declares that plaintiffs served their responses

26

upon defendants but do not state when. Id.

27
28

On February 13, 2015, Ms. Scott submitted a supplemental declaration denying that
plaintiffs timely complied with the court’s January 23, 2015 order in any respect. ECF No. 48.
2

1

Scott declares that she received electronic copies of documents from plaintiffs on February 9,

2

2015, and hard copies on February 12, 2015. Id. at 3. Her declaration attaches the envelope in

3

which the hard copies were sent, postmarked February 9, 2015, as well as a February 9, 2015

4

email from plaintiff’s counsel, as proof that plaintiffs’ supplemental production was not timely.

5

Id. at 7, 11. Also attached to the Supplemental Scott Declaration are the proofs of service which

6

accompanied the hard copies, which bear the printed date of February 6, 2015 but are unsigned.

7

Id. at 25, 40. These unsigned certificates fail to establish that the documents were placed in the

8

mail on February 6, 2015. Scott declares that plaintiffs never contacted her to inform her that

9

documents and responses might not be produced in a timely manner. Id. at 2. In addition, Scott

10

avers that many of the documents listed in plaintiffs’ February 9, 2015 declaration were not, in

11

fact, produced. Id. at 4. The documents that defendants did not receive are listed in paragraph

12

nine of Scott’s supplemental declaration. Id. at 4. Finally, those documents that were received

13

were allegedly disorganized, un-bates labeled, and failed to clarify which documents correspond

14

to which listed item. Id.

15

Having considered the declarations of counsel for both parties, and their attachments, the

16

undersigned finds that Mr. Robinson failed to timely comply with the court’s January 23, 2015,

17

order. Accordingly, the court will grant defendants’ request for sanctions against counsel for

18

plaintiffs in the amount of $980.40. The court declines to issue these sanctions against plaintiffs

19

themselves. If plaintiffs have not yet served defendants with sufficient supplemental responses

20

and production by the time this order is served, defendants may file a motion for further

21

sanctions.

22

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1.

24

Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, plaintiffs’ counsel shall
pay to defense counsel $980.40; and

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
3

1

2. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, plaintiffs’ counsel shall file an

2

affidavit under penalty of perjury stating that the sanction payment has been made and was not

3

billed to plaintiffs.

4

DATED: April 7, 2015

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4