Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc et al

Filing 199

ORDER re 198 Defendants' March 23, 2017 Letter. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/24/2017. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAUL SOMERS,
Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS'
MARCH 23, 2017 LETTER

v.

10

DIGITAL REALTY TRUST INC, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-05180-EMC (KAW)

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 198

12
13

On March 8, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file letters "discussing all outstanding

14

discovery disputes that the parties desire the Court to resolve" by March 14, 2017. (Dkt. No. 189

15

at 1.) Pursuant to this order, Defendants filed a discovery letter on March 14, 2017. (Dkt. No.

16

190.) Plaintiff did not file a letter. On March 15, 2017, the Court issued an order addressing

17

several of Defendants' discovery disputes, and ordering that the parties meet and confer in-person

18

at the Oakland Courthouse on March 21, 2017. On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a letter raising

19

other discovery issues, and asking to be relieved from the Court's in-person meet and confer

20

requirement. (Dkt. No. 194.) That same day, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for relief from

21

the in-person meet and confer requirement. (Dkt. No. 195.)

22

On March 21, 2017, the parties conducted an all-day, in-person meet and confer at the

23

Oakland Courthouse, with the assistance of the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 196.) In light of this meet

24

and confer and the agreements made by the parties, the Court terminated Defendants' March 14,

25

2017 letter and Plaintiff's March 20, 2017 letter as moot. (Dkt. No. 197.)

26

On March 23, 2017, Defendants filed a letter requesting that the Court rule on several

27

issues raised in the March 14, 2017 letter, on the grounds that they had not "contemplated, and did

28

not meet and confer on, all of the discovery issues submitted to [the Court] by [Defendants] on

1

March 14, 2017," instead meeting "only on the discovery issues with pending deadlines, as

2

ordered." (Dkt. No. 198 at 2.)
As an initial matter, the Court notes that during the March 21, 2017 meet and confer, the

3
4

undersigned expressed to the parties that they should try to resolve all disputes between the

5

parties. During the meet and confer, Defendants did in fact raise several of the disputes listed in

6

the March 14, 2017 letter, including production of documents related to damages and the audio

7

recording. (See Dkt. Nos. 194 at 5-7; 196.) Plaintiff agreed to produce these documents by March

8

31, 2017. (Dkt. No. 196.) In light of Plaintiff's stated intent to produce the documents sought, the

9

Court DENIES Defendants' request to impose evidentiary sanctions at this time.1
As to Defendants' third, fourth, and fifth requests for production, Defendants state that

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff has failed to produce formal written objections and responses to Defendants' third and

12

fourth requests for production, and failed to produce any documents responsive to Defendants'

13

fifth request for production. (Dkt. No. 190 at 7.) Defendants further state that Plaintiff has not

14

provided a timely response to Defendants' third set of interrogatories. (Id.)
The Court previously found that Plaintiff's failure to provide timely objections constituted

15
16

a waiver of objections. (See Dkt. No. 159 at 2-3 (finding that Plaintiff waived his objections to

17

Requests for Production, Set Three, based on Plaintiff's "failure to furnish timely written

18

responses"); Dkt. No. 172 at 2 (same).) Thus, to the extent Plaintiff failed to provide timely

19

objections, he has waived his objections and must respond to these requests for production and

20

interrogatories in full. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to produce all responsive

21

documents and information to Defendants' third, fourth, and fifth requests for production, and

22

Defendants' third set of interrogatories, by March 31, 2017. Plaintiff must also provide all

23

documents related to his job search and mitigation of damages, as previously ordered by the Court,

24

by March 31, 2017. (See Dkt. Nos. 110, 159.) Plaintiff may not object.2 Failure to do so may

25
1

26

The Court will be more likely to impose sanctions should Plaintiff not produce the requested
documents by March 31, 2017.

27

2

28

If Plaintiff contends he has timely objected, Plaintiff must provide a copy of his responses to
these requests for production and interrogatories, which must be dated so that the Court can ensure
that objections were timely provided. See Fed R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) (responses to interrogatories due
2

result in sanctions for failure to cooperate in the discovery process, including monetary or

2

evidentiary sanctions, or a recommendation of terminating sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rule of

3

Civil Procedure 37. See Gordon v. Cty. of Alameda, No. CV-06-2997-SBA, 2007 WL 1750207, at

4

*2 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2007) ("Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides for sanctions available

5

for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery. Under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), if a party fails

6

to obey an order to provide discovery, the court may dismiss the action or proceeding in whole or

7

in part"); In re Pryor, 543 Fed. Appx. 685, 685 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that the bankruptcy court

8

did not abuse its discretion in directing entry of default based on the party's willful failure to attend

9

a status conference, cooperate in the discovery process, and timely respond to the court's order to

10

show cause); Landry v. City & Cty. of SF, No. 08-3791-SC, 2010 WL 1461592, at *5 (N.D. Cal.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Apr. 9, 2010) (dismissing case where the plaintiffs repeatedly defied court orders).

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

within 30 days of being served); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A) (responses to requests for production
are due within 30 days of being served).
3