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)

Download PDF
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

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?