Samran v. Manulife Investment Mgt. Farmland Mgt. Services, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 11/26/24, GRANTING 12 , 16 Defendant's Motion to Compel (see order for further details). (Salmeron, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

INDERJIT SAMRAN,

12

Case No. 2:24-cv-01042-DJC-CSK

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

MANULIFE INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT FARMLAND
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,

15
16

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL
(ECF Nos. 12,16)

Defendant.

17
Defendant Manulife Investment Management Farmland Management Services,

18
19

Inc. moves to compel Plaintiff Inderjit Samran to make his initial disclosures and to

20

respond to Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production. 1 Def. Mot. Compel

21

Init. Discl. (ECF No. 12); Def. Mot. Compel Written Disco. (ECF No. 16). Defendant also

22

seeks the award of sanctions for having to file the motions to compel. Def. Mot. Compel

23

Init. Discl. at 4; Def. Mot. Compel Written Disco. at 6. Pursuant to Local Rule 251(e),

24

Defendant’s motions are excepted from the requirement for Joint Statements re

25

Discovery Disagreement and were set for hearing on November 26, 2024. See E.D. Cal.

26

L.R. 251(e); Def. Mot. Compel Init. Discl. at 3; Def. Mot. Compel Written Disco at 5.

27
28

This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(1).
1
1

1

Though Plaintiff’s responses to the motions were due November 19, 2024, Plaintiff has

2

not responded to Defendant’s motions. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(e); Docket. On November

3

26, 2024, the Court held a hearing via Zoom. (ECF No. 21.) Attorney Cristen Hintze

4

appeared on Defendant’s behalf. Attorney Candice Jackson appeared on Plaintiff’s

5

behalf. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel.

6

I.

BACKGROUND

7

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court

8

against Defendant for employment discrimination and retaliation. (ECF No. 1-1, Exh. A.)

9

On April 5, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer in Stanislaus County Superior Court. (ECF

10

No. 1-1, Exh. B.) On April 8, 2024, Defendant removed this action to federal court

11

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 1.) On June 7, 2024, parties filed their joint

12

status report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). (ECF No. 8.) On June 10,

13

2024, the district court referred this matter for settlement proceedings due to the parties’

14

representations within their joint status report. (ECF No. 9.) On June 26, 2024, a

15

settlement conference order was issued setting a settlement conference for November

16

20, 2024 before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. (ECF No. 10.) A pre-settlement

17

conference call was also set for November 14, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate

18

Judge Peterson. Id. Each party was required to submit a mediation statement to Judge

19

Peterson and all other parties no later than November 6, 2024. Id.

20

Pursuant to the parties’ June 7, 2024 joint status report, the parties agreed to

21

exchange initial disclosures by July 8, 2024. ECF No. 8 at 4. On July 3, 2024, Defendant

22

timely made its initial disclosures. 10/9/2024 Declaration of Cristen Hintze, Exh. A-B

23

(ECF No. 12 at 8-17). Because Plaintiff had not served his initial disclosures, Defendant

24

followed-up on July 11, 2024. Id., Exh. A at 10-11. On the same day, Plaintiff responded,

25

“I had calendared July 25 as the latest for disclosures, so I will try to complete those for

26

you sooner than that date.” Id. at 10. On July 26, August 5, August 8, and September 6,

27

2024, Defendant followed up with emails and voicemails to inquire regarding the status

28

of Plaintiff’s initial disclosures. Id. at 9-10. Defendant also notified Plaintiff on September
2

1

6, 2024 that if it did not receive Plaintiff’s initial disclosures, it would have to seek court

2

intervention. Id. at 9. Plaintiff did not respond.

3

On August 21, 2024, Defendant served interrogatories and requests for

4

production of documents (RFPs) on Plaintiff in preparation for the parties’ settlement

5

conference. 10/25/2024 Declaration of Cristen Hintze, Exhs. A-B (ECF No. 16 at 8-30).

6

Because Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant’s written discovery, Defendant

7

followed up on September 23, 2024 requesting Plaintiff serve full and complete

8

responses to Defendant’s written discovery without objections by September 27, 2024.

9

Id., Exh. B. at 29. Plaintiff responded the same day requesting until Friday, September

10

27 to provide responses since Plaintiff’s counsel “had a personal medical issue and

11

dropped the ball for you.” Id. Defendant confirmed a deadline of September 27, 2024 for

12

written discovery without objections and again requested confirmation as to whether

13

Plaintiff will also be serving his initial disclosures on September 27, 2024. Id. at 28.

14

Plaintiff did not respond. Defendant followed up again on October 9 and October 17 to

15

inquire as to the status of his initial disclosures and responses to written discovery. Id.

16

Defendant also notified Plaintiff that if it did not receive responses to its written

17

discovery, it would have to seek court intervention. Id. Plaintiff did not respond.

18

On November 13, 2024, Magistrate Judge Peterson issued a Minute Order

19

vacating the November 20, 2024 settlement conference and the pre-settlement

20

conference call set for November 14, 2024 due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely submit his

21

mediation statement and counsel’s failure to respond to the court’s inquiry regarding the

22

status of the mediation statement. (ECF No. 18.)

23

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

24

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant

25

to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ.

26

P. 26(b)(1). “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.”

27

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

28

A party may propound interrogatories relating to any matter that may be inquired
3

1

to under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Rule 33 requires that, unless otherwise

2

agreed upon or ordered, the responding party must serve its answers and any objections

3

to interrogatories within thirty (30) days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2).

4

Parties must respond to the fullest extent possible, and any objections must be stated

5

with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4). In general, a responding party is not required

6

“to conduct extensive research in order to answer an interrogatory, but a reasonable

7

effort to respond must be made.” Haney v. Saldana, 2010 WL 3341939, at *3 (E.D. Cal.

8

Aug. 24, 2010) (citing L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2017 WL 2781132, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep.

9

21, 2007)). Further, the responding party must supplement a response if the information

10

sought is later obtained or the previous response requires a correction. Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

26(e)(1)(A).

12

A party may serve requests to produce documents in the responding party's

13

possession, custody, or control, including designated documents, electronically stored

14

information, or other writings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). A requesting party is entitled to

15

production of documents within a responding party's possession, custody, or control,

16

regardless of whether the requesting party possesses the same documents. Fed. R. Civ.

17

P. 34(a). The responding party must respond in writing within thirty (30) days, unless

18

otherwise agreed upon or ordered, after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). If a

19

responding party objects, the objection “must state whether any responsive materials are

20

being withheld on the basis of that objection[, and] an objection to part of a request must

21

specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

22

A party may move to compel discovery if the movant has in good faith conferred

23

with the party opposing discovery to obtain the requested discovery without the court's

24

intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The moving party bears the burden to “inform

25

the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for

26

each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding

27

party's objections are not meritorious.” Adams v. Yates, 2013 WL 5924983, at *1 (E.D.

28

Cal. Nov. 1, 2013). Local Rule 251 governs motions to compel and requires the parties
4

1

to confer and attempt to resolve their discovery differences. If there has been “a

2

complete and total failure to respond to a discovery request or order,” the moving party

3

may bring its motion on fourteen (14) days’ notice and the requirement for a Joint

4

Statement re Discovery Disagreement is excused. E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(e).

5

If a court grants the motion to compel, then the court must order the party “whose

6

conduct necessitated the motion... to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in

7

making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The court must

8

not award expenses if “the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to

9

obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action”; “the opposing party's

10

nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified”; or “other

11

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii).

12

The burden is on the losing party to prove that its position was substantially justified. See

13

R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 673 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 2012).

14

III.

15

DISCUSSION
“The discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely unsupervised

16

by the district court. But when required disclosures aren’t made or cooperation breaks

17

down, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a party to move for an order compelling

18

disclosures or discovery.” Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir.

19

2018). Here, Plaintiff has completely failed to uphold his discovery obligations and

20

cooperate in discovery.

21

A.

Initial Disclosures, Interrogatories, and RFPs

22

Plaintiff’s initial disclosures were due on or by July 8, 2024 pursuant to the parties’

23

agreement. ECF No. 8; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). As of the filing of Defendant’s

24

second motion to compel on October 25, 2024, Plaintiff still had not made his initial

25

disclosures, in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Def. Mot. Compel

26

Init. Discl. at 2; Def. Mot. Compel Written Disco. at 4. The Court orders Plaintiff to make

27

his initial disclosures within seven (7) days of this order. Plaintiff is warned that if a party

28

“fails to provide information or identify witnesses as required by Rule 26(a), the party is
5

1

not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a

2

hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R.

3

Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

4

Defendant’s interrogatories and RFPs were served electronically on August 21,

5

2024, making Plaintiff’s responses due on or by September 20, 2024. 2 10/25/2024

6

Hintze Decl., Exh. A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2). As of the filing of Defendant’s

7

motion on October 25, 2024, Plaintiff has not responded to any interrogatories or

8

produced any documents. See Def. Mot. Compel Written Disco. at 4.

9

The Court orders Plaintiff to serve complete and full responses to Defendant’s

10

interrogatories without objection and to produce documents responsive to Defendant’s

11

RFPs without objection within seven (7) days of this order. Due to Plaintiff’s complete

12

failure to respond to Defendant’s interrogatories, RFPs and to oppose Defendant’s

13

motion, Plaintiff has waived any objection to Defendant’s interrogatories and RFPs. See

14

In re PersonalWeb Techs., LLC et al. Pat. Litig., 2022 WL 16556793, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

15

Oct. 31, 2022); Bell v. Jones, 2021 WL 843242, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021).

16

Plaintiff is reminded of his duty to prosecute his case, comply with court orders,

17

and participate in discovery. If Plaintiff fails to prosecute his case, comply with court

18

orders, or participate in discovery, Plaintiff may face serious sanctions, including

19

dismissal. See Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d

20

1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming district court’s imposition of terminating sanction for

21

discovery violations).

22

If a party fails to obey a discovery order, the court “may issue further just orders,”

23

including:

24

(i)

25
26
27
28

directing that the matters embraced in the order or other
designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the
action, as the prevailing party claims;

This is calculated based on the parties’ agreement to electronic service of discovery.
ECF No. 8 at 4.
6
2

1

(ii)

prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated
matters in evidence;

(iii)

striking pleadings in whole or in part;

(iv)

staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;

(v)

dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;

(vi)

rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or

(vii)

treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order
except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); see Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir.

11

2006). The choice of sanction, including dismissal, is within the discretion of the court.

12

Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted); see also E.D.

13

Cal. L.R. 110 (noting the failure of a party to comply with any local rule or order of the

14

court may result in the imposition of “any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule

15

or within the inherent power of the Court”).

16

B.

17

The Court further orders Plaintiff to file a written status report within seven (7)

Requirement for Plaintiff to File Discovery Status Report

18

days of this order regarding his compliance with this order in making his initial

19

disclosures, serving complete and full interrogatory responses without objections, and

20

producing documents responsive to Defendant’s RFPs without objections. The status

21

report shall describe the manner and date of service of each of these items.

22

C.

23

If a court grants a motion to compel, it also must award the moving party its

24

reasonable expenses in making the motion, including attorneys' fees unless: the moving

25

party did not make a good faith attempt to obtain the disclosure before making the

26

motion; the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially

27

justified; or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P.

Rule 37 Expenses

28
7

1

37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii). “The test for substantial justification is one of reasonableness.” Cathey

2

v. City of Vallejo, 2015 WL 5734858, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) (internal quotations

3

omitted) (quoting United States v. First Nat. Bank of Circle, 732 F.2d 1444, 1447 (9th Cir.

4

1984)).

5

At the hearing, Plaintiff was provided with the opportunity to provide justification

6

for his complete failure to participate in discovery and respond to Defendant’s motions.

7

Not only was no justification provided, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded there was no

8

justification. When asked by the Court who should bear the Rule 37 expenses, Plaintiff’s

9

counsel indicated the failure to participate in discovery and respond to the motions was

10

entirely Plaintiff Inderjit Samran’s responsibility. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that she had

11

draft discovery responses pending client review for 7 weeks. The contentions of

12

Plaintiff’s counsel, however, are not consistent with the record before this Court. See,

13

e.g., 10/9/2024 Hintze Decl., Exh. A at 10 (“I had calendared July 25 as the latest for

14

disclosures, so I will try to complete those for you sooner than that date.”); 10/25/24

15

Hintze Decl., Exh. B at 27 (Plaintiff’s counsel had “dropped the ball” in providing

16

discovery responses). Plaintiff’s failure to participate in discovery and generally in the

17

prosecution of his case is not permitted. 3 Plaintiff was verbally warned by the Court that

18

the continued failure to participate in discovery, respond to the Court’s orders, and

19

prosecute his case will result in future sanctions, including a potential prohibition on

20

presenting certain witnesses and documents not timely disclosed and a recommendation

21

that this action be dismissed.
Here, awarding reasonable expenses is mandatory as none of the exceptions

22
23

have been established and there is no justification, let alone substantial justification for

24

Plaintiff’s failure to participate in discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii).

25
26
27
28

The Court notes that the pre-settlement conference call and settlement conference
were vacated due to Plaintiff’s failure to submit his mediation brief and Plaintiff’s
counsel’s failure to respond to the settlement judge’s inquiry as to the status of the
mediation brief. See ECF No. 18. Plaintiff’s counsel assured the Court that such failures
will not be repeated.
8

3

1

Defendant made several good faith attempts over multiple months to get Plaintiff to

2

provide his initial disclosures and respond to Defendant’s written discovery requests.

3

Plaintiff has completely failed to meet his discovery obligations. Plaintiff also failed to

4

respond to Defendant’s motions to compel, waiving any objection to Defendant’s

5

motions.

6

Defendant has not, however, provided sufficient information needed for the Court

7

to determine the amount of expenses. The Court therefore orders Defendant to file and

8

submit its reasonable expenses in making the motions to compel, including attorney’s

9

fees, within fourteen (14) days of this order. Defendant must include sufficient detail,

10

including the number of hours spent in making and arguing the motions, the description

11

of the work completed, counsel’s hourly rates, counsel’s experience, and the prevailing

12

market rate in Sacramento, where this district court sits, for attorneys of comparable

13

experience.

14

Plaintiff will be provided with the opportunity to respond to Defendant’s

15

submission on reasonable expenses and to be heard regarding the award of reasonable

16

expenses under Rule 37(a)(5). Plaintiff may file a response within seven (7) days after

17

the filing of Defendant’s submission. A failure to timely respond by Plaintiff will be

18

construed as a non-opposition to the award of reasonable expenses under Rule

19

37(a)(5). A separate order on Defendant’s Rule 37 fees will issue separately.

20

ORDER

21

As discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel (ECF

22
23

Nos. 12, 16), and ORDERS:
1.

Within seven (7) days of this order, Plaintiff shall make his initial disclosures,

24

serve his complete and full responses to Defendant’s interrogatories without

25

objection, and produce documents responsive to Defendant’s RFPs without

26

objection;

27
28

2.

Within seven (7) days of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written status report
regarding his compliance with this order in making his initial disclosures,
9

1

serving complete and full interrogatory responses without objections, and

2

producing documents responsive to Defendant’s RFPs without objections. The

3

status report shall describe the manner and date of service of each of these

4

items;

5

3.

Within fourteen (14) days of this order, Defendant shall file and submit its

6

reasonable expenses in making the motion to compel, including attorney’s

7

fees; and

8

4.

9
10

Within seven (7) days after the filing of Defendant’s submission of its
reasonable expenses, Plaintiff may file a response.

5.

A separate order on Defendant’s Rule 37 fees will issue separately.

11
12

Dated: November 26, 2024

13
14
15

4, samr1885.23

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10