Moody v. County of San Mateo et al

Filing 51

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil denying 42 Motion to Compel (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2009)

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACEY MOODY, Plaintiff, v. SAN MATEO COUNTY, Defendant. /

No. C 08-01864 MMC (WDB) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Having reviewed the parties' papers and considered pertinent rules, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff's untimely and procedurally improper motions to compel additional responses to discovery probes and for sanctions. Under Civil Local Rule 7-8, a motion for sanctions "must be separately filed." The Court DENIES the motion for sanctions because plaintiff failed to comply with this Rule ­ or even to acknowledge its existence. Plaintiff also failed to "itemize with particularity the otherwise unnecessary expenses, including attorney fees, directly caused by the alleged violation or breach, and [to] set forth an appropriate justification for any attorney-fee hourly rate claimed," thus violating Local Civil Rule 37-3 (emphasis added). Under Civil Rule 26-2, "no motions to compel discovery may be filed more than 7 court days after the discovery cut-off." The District Judge set the discovery cut-off in the case at June 5, 2009. Plaintiff filed this motion to compel on July 10, 2009 -- well past the deadline. Plaintiff fails to explain or attempt to justify this tardiness. ///

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

Plaintiff's motion also violates the Local Rules by failing to "show how the proportionality and other requirements of FRCivP 26(b)(2) are satisfied." Civil Local Rule 37-2. In addition, the Court observes that counsel for plaintiff noticed five depositions and the challenged 30(b)(6) event with only a little more than three weeks remaining before the discovery cut-off. This belated explosion of discovery activity was transparently unreasonable, especially given that plaintiff purported to identify some 34 separate topics for the 30(b)(6) deposition (to say nothing of the other depositions), and given that many of these topics called upon the County to undertake burdensome efforts to produce information that would clearly exceed any reasonable understanding of the appropriate scope of discovery in this case For all these reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motions in their entirety and admonishes counsel for plaintiff that repetition of this kind of inattention to rule-based duties may result in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. By this ORDER, the Court also VACATES THE HEARING ON THESE MOTIONS THAT HAD BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2009

WAYNE D. BRAZIL United States Magistrate Judge

2