Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Toyama Partners, LLC et al

Filing 471

ORDER denying plaintiff's request for sanctions re #457 Letter Brief filed by Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on February 28, 2012. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2012) Modified on 2/29/2012 (ysS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

NOT FOR CITATION

4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

No. CV 10-0325 SI (NJV)

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff,
v.

(Doc. No. 457)

TOYAMA PARTNERS LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

/

15
16
17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiff Dollar Tree’s request for sanctions. Doc. Nos. 457. For the
reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the request for sanctions.
The Court previously overruled Defendants’ objections to certain Requests for Admission

19

and ordered Defendants to supplement their responses accordingly. Doc. No. 321. Defendant

20

Toyama supplemented its responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 10 and 11, admitting in part

21

and denying in part both Requests. Plaintiff contends Toyama’s supplemental responses are

22

inadequate and asks this Court to order the Requests deemed admitted and order Defendants to pay

23

Plaintiff’s related expenses at this juncture. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 limits the relief

24

available to Plaintiff in this situation:

25
26
27
28

Subdivision (c). Rule 37(c) provides a sanction for the enforcement of
Rule 36 dealing with requests for admission. Rule 36 provides the
mechanism whereby a party may obtain from another party in appropriate
instances either (1) and admission, or (2) a sworn and specific denial, or
(3) a sworn statement “setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot
truthfully admit or deny.” If the party obtains the second or third of these
responses, in proper form, Rule 36 does not provide for a pretrial hearing

1
2

on whether the response is warranted by the evidence thus far
accumulated. Instead, Rule 37(c) is intended to provide posttrial relief in
the form of a requirement that the party improperly refusing the admission
pay the expenses of the other side in making the necessary proof at trial.

3
4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, 1970 amendment notes. The Court notes that the facts surrounding the

5

production of the Sale Agreement and Amendments thereto have been addressed extensively on the

6

record by the parties, and that there appears to be no dispute as to those facts. Plaintiff may choose

7

to call Defense counsel at trial; Defendants may be limited to their discovery response at trial by the

8

District Court; and, if Plaintiff at trial establishes that Defendants improperly refused the admission,

9

it may obtain its expenses after trial.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff also argue that the Requests should be deemed admitted by the remaining

11

Defendants because they failed to supplement their responses as ordered. Defense counsel argues

12

the failure to supplement the responses was an oversight, and that Counsel supplemented the

13

remaining Defendants’ responses upon learning of the problem. Those supplemental responses are

14

identical to Toyama’s supplemental responses. In the absence of any showing of harm caused by

15

this oversight, which appears to have been caused by physical injuries sustained by Counsel (see

16

Doc. No. 464), the Court will not impose the drastic sanction Plaintiff seeks.

17
IT IS SO ORDERED
18
19

Dated: February 28, 2012
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2