Hines v. California Public Utilities Commission et al

Filing 298

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 262 Defendant's Motion to Compel (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ Defendant the CPUC has filed a motion in which it asks the Court to compel Plaintiff Donna Hines to respond to certain discovery. Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of counsel and Ms. Hines, proceeding pro se, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's motion. (1) Ms. Hines shall respond to the questions propounded at her deposition which she DONNA HINES, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Docket No. 262) No. C-07-4145 CW (EMC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

refused to respond on the basis of attorney-client or work product privilege. As the Court noted at the hearing, Ms. Hines's assertion of the privileges was improper. The questions posed by the CPUC simply asked Ms. Hines about the underlying facts of the case, matters which are not privileged. Ms. Hines's deposition shall take place by March 26, 2010. At the deposition, the CPUC may ask reasonable follow-up questions. (2) Ms. Hines shall serve responses to the written discovery (interrogatories and

document requests) such that they are received by the CPUC no later than 9:00 a.m. of March 30, 2010. Any documents shall also be produced such that they are received by the CPUC by that time. Ms. Hines is forewarned that all nonprivileged, responsive documents in her possession, custody, or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

control must be produced at that time. If she subsequently produces additional documents, she bears the risk that they may be excluded from trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)-(d). Ms. Hines is also forewarned that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, she is not permitted to describe responsive documents in lieu of producing them, at least absent an agreement by Defendant or an order of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i) (requiring a party to "produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business" or to "organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request"). Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(ii) (for initial disclosures, allowing a party to describe by category and location documents in the party's possession, custody, or control that it may use to support its claims or defenses). This order disposes of Docket No. 262.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2010 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. DONNA HINES, Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE No. C-07-4145 CW (EMC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

___________________________________/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk. Donna Hines 268 Bush Street, #3204 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-205-3377 Dated: March 19, 2010 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By:

Leni Doyle Deputy Clerk

/s/