Buschman v. Anesthesia Business Consultants LLC

Filing 41

ORDER REGARDING APRIL 30, 2014 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/5/2014. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALAN BUSCHMAN,

Case No. 13-cv-01787-EMC (JSC)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING APRIL 30, 2014
JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

9
10

ANESTHESIA BUSINESS
CONSULTANTS LLC,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. No. 39

12
13

This diversity jurisdiction breach of contract and negligence action arises out of

14

Defendant’s failure to maintain an UNUM group disability insurance policy that would have

15

covered Plaintiff Alan Buschman. Defendant’s summary judgment motion is currently submitted

16

before the assigned district court judge, and jury trial is scheduled to commence in September of

17

this year. Fact discovery closed on March 20, 2014.

18

Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter. Plaintiff seeks, in

19

effect, a protective order to prohibit Defendant from conducting additional discovery after the fact

20

discovery deadline. After carefully reviewing the parties’ letter and attached exhibits, the Court

21

concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and rules as it set forth below.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1.

UNUM Subpoena

The Court will not quash the April 2, 2014 subpoena to the extent it seeks the same
documents that were sought by the October 2013 subpoena which was inadvertently overlooked
by the subpoenaed party. However, Defendant may not seek any new documents, for example,
request no. 9. Defendant offers no explanation for why it could not seek such documents before
the discovery cut off.

1

2.

Supplemental Interrogatory Responses & Amended Initial Disclosures

2

Plaintiff seeks a ruling that Defendant cannot call as witnesses persons not identified in

3

their initial disclosures or responses to interrogatories before the close of fact discovery.

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), entitled “Supplementing Disclosures and

5

Responses” provides:

6

A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)—or
who has responded to an interrogatory, . . .—must supplement or
correct its disclosure or response:

7
8

(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some
material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or
incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not
otherwise been made known to the other parties during the
discovery process or in writing.”

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s explanation

12

of how Plaintiff has been aware of the witnesses whom Defendant added to its disclosures and

13

interrogatories. Thus, Plaintiff had “otherwise been made known” of the witnesses during the

14

discovery process and no amendment or supplement to Defendant’s discovery responses was even

15

required. See William W. Schwarzer, et al. Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 11:1245-46

16

(2011); Medora v. CCSF, 2007 WL 2221069 *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2007) (holding that failure to

17

include names of witnesses in initial disclosures was harmless when opposing party separately had

18

knowledge of those persons). The Court therefore declines to strike the supplementary

19

interrogatory responses or amended disclosures. Despite both parties being aware of these

20

witnesses during the discovery period, no party sought to depose them. That is where the record

21

will stand.

22

3.

23

Defendant may seek the requested attachment from third party PRJ Insurance Marketing,

24
25
26
27
28

Request for Document Supplementation

Inc. The attachment is responsive to timely served discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 5, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
2