Hardin v. Mendocino Coast District Hospital et al

Filing 128

Discovery Order re 120 Declaration in Support. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 5/20/2019. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ELLEN HARDIN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-05554-JST (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER

v.
MENDOCINO COAST DISTRICT
HOSPITAL, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

The Court previously held that the Brown Act is not a privilege recognized under federal

14

law and overruled Defendants’ objections to deposition questions based on that statute. ECF No.

15

119. At the time, the Court declined to rule on Defendants’ written discovery responses because

16

the Court did not have them before it. Plaintiff Ellen Hardin has now provided those, ECF No.

17

120, and the Court has been able to review them.

18

Defendant Mendocino Coast District Hospital’s objections to Hardin’s request for

19

production, inspection and copying of documents, set one (ECF No. 120, Ex. A) and the amended

20

responses (ECF No. 120, Ex. D) assert the Brown Act as a basis for not producing documents in

21

response to numerous requests. That objection is OVERRULED. The Court ORDERS MCDH

22

to produce documents that were withheld based on the Brown Act. Given the July 5, 2019 close

23

of fact discovery, this document production shall occur within 14 days. Please note that this order

24

overrules this one, specific objection in all of the RFP responses, but it does not overrule any

25

others, as Hardin’s letter brief raised only this issue as to the RFP responses. See ECF No. 108.

26

Defendants Bob Edwards, Steve Lund and Wade Sturgeon’s responses to Hardin’s form

27

interrogatories – general, set one (ECF No. 120, Ex. A) assert the Brown Act as an objection to

28

several of the interrogatories. But they do that only after the response to interrogatory No. 3.5,

1

when they stop responding to the interrogatories altogether, asserting that Hardin has propounded

2

more than 25 on each of these Defendants in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

3

Since Hardin has not challenged the Rule 33 objection, there is no point ordering them to amend

4

their interrogatory responses because just removing the Brown Act objection won’t change their

5

answers – which, starting with interrogatory No. 3.6, are that they won’t answer.

6

The situation is different with respect to MCDH’s response to Hardin’s form

7

interrogatories – employment law, set one (ECF No. 120, Ex. A), however, because MCDH

8

amended them and dropped the Rule 33 objection. ECF No. 120, Ex. D. Accordingly, the Court

9

ORDERS MCDH to further amend its responses to these interrogatories to remove the Brown Act
objection and include responsive information, if any, that was previously withheld based on the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Brown Act. The amended responses must be served within 30 days.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: May 20, 2019

15
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

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