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)

Download PDF
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

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?