ABM Parking Services, Inc. v. Malatin et al

Filing 35

Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/15/2013. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ABM PARKING SERVICES, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL D. MALATIN and PINNACLE
AUTOMOTIVE HOSPITALITY
SERVICES, INC.,

15

ORDER RE OCTOBER 2, 2013,
DISCOVERY HEARING

Defendants.
/

16
17

No. C 13-02211 WHA

Defendants Michael D. Malatin and Pinnacle Automotive Hospitality Services, Inc., filed

18

a discovery letter on September 24, 2013, claiming that plaintiff ABM Parking Services, Inc.’s

19

initial disclosures were inadequate. Plaintiff filed a response on September 30, 2013. Following

20

an unsuccessful three-hour meet-and-confer to resolve the discovery dispute, a hearing was held

21

on October 2, 2013, on the issues.

22
23
24

Having considered arguments of counsel, as well as all accompanying documents on file
in this action, it is hereby ordered:
1.

By OCTOBER 11, 2013, plaintiff must have produced any and all documents

25

referred to in its initial disclosures. Plaintiff will be prohibited from relying on or

26

introducing into evidence in this action any document that is referred to in

27

plaintiff’s initial disclosures but was not produced by October 11, 2013.

28

2.

By OCTOBER 31, 2013, plaintiff must provide defendants with a computation of
each category of damages claimed by plaintiff in this action, and must make

1

available for inspection and copying the documents and other material(s) on

2

which plaintiff relies for such computation, including materials bearing on the

3

nature and extent of injuries suffered, unless privileged. If, subsequent to October

4

31, 2013, information becomes available which could not have been obtained

5

earlier, then under the supplementation provision of FRCP 26, plaintiff may

6

attempt to augment its initial disclosures computation, without prejudice to a

7

motion by defendants to strike such augmentation as improper.

8
9

Because plaintiff lacked substantial justification for its failure to comply with the
initial disclosures requirement of FRCP 26(a), plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay
defendants $400 in attorney’s fees.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

3.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: October 15, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2