Doe v. City of San Mateo et al

Filing 362

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Docket No. 358)(SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2010)

Download PDF
Doe v. City of San Mateo et al Doc. 362 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. CITY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants. / JANE DOE, Plaintiff, No. C 07-05596 SI ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Docket No. 358) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff has filed a discovery letter seeking to compel defendant City of San Mateo to provide a response to plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 6, which asked defendant to "Identify each communication [it] participated in, or know[s] of, concerning of the Plaintiff's alleged wrongful acts." The City's response to this interrogatory was an objection stating, "This interrogatory is overly broad, not reasonably limited in scope or time, and as such is invasive of the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product immunity." See Def. Ex. A at 5. The City has attached other discovery responses, including its detailed response to Interrogatory No. 5 and San Mateo Police Officer Murphy's response to Interrogatory No. 10 which plaintiffs propounded to him. These responses demonstrate that plaintiff already has the information which she seeks through the present motion. Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED. The City seeks sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $940, representing the attorneys' fees and costs it incurred in connection with this motion. Civil Local Rule 7-8(a), however, requires that any request for sanctions be brought through a separately filed and noticed motion. Indeed, the City has a pending motion for sanctions in connection with other discovery-related conduct by plaintiff. (Docket No. 351). Accordingly, the City's request for sanctions in connection with plaintiff's filing of the Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 present letter brief is DENIED at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 15, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?