Reed et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al

Filing 102

ORDER Regarding Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 09/07/2012. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

No. C 11-00194 DMR

REED ET AL,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER REGARDING SANCTIONS

v.

12

WELLS FARGO BANK ET AL,

13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15

On July 26, 2012, the court held a hearing on the parties’ July 16, 2012 joint discovery letter

16

[Docket No. 89], in which Defendant Wells Fargo Bank sought an order compelling Plaintiffs

17

Benjamin F. Reed and Irma M. Reed to respond to Defendant’s first sets of document requests and

18

interrogatories, and requested sanctions. The court ordered Plaintiffs to respond to the discovery at

19

issue by no later than August 10, 2012. The court also ordered the parties to exchange initial

20

disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 by August 6, 2012. [Docket No. 95.] In

21

an August 24, 2012 joint discovery letter, Defendant asserted, and Plaintiffs confirmed, that

22

Plaintiffs had not complied with the court’s Order to respond to discovery by August 10, 2012.

23

[Docket No. 96.] Defendant also asserted that Plaintiffs had not served their Rule 26 initial

24

disclosures and renewed its request for sanctions. As it was not clear whether Plaintiffs had

25

subsequently provided responses to the discovery at issue, the court ordered Plaintiffs to submit a

26

statement by no later than September 4, 2012 confirming that they had provided complete and

27

comprehensive responses to Defendant’s discovery and that they had produced their initial

28

1

disclosures. [Docket No. 97.] On September 4, 2012, Plaintiffs represented that they had provided

2

responses to Defendant’s discovery and had produced Rule 26 initial disclosures. [Docket No. 98.]

3

The court held a telephonic hearing regarding sanctions on September 7, 2012. During the

4

hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that he had served responses to Defendant’s interrogatories and

5

Plaintiffs’ Rule 26 initial disclosures on September 4, 2012, several weeks after the deadlines set by

6

the court in its July 26, 2012 Order. He also admitted that he had not yet served written responses to

7

Defendant’s document requests.1

8

Plaintiffs have been the subject of three separate Orders to Show Cause for their failure to

Plaintiffs’ counsel has been personally sanctioned for the same. [Docket Nos. 13, 16, 38, 46.]

11

Given the history of failures to comply with deadlines and court orders in this case, the court

12

concludes that sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel’s for failure to obey the court’s July 26, 2012

13

discovery order are appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), (c)(1) (authorizing imposition of

14

sanctions for discovery violations, including ordering a party to pay the reasonable expenses caused

15

by its failure to comply with the order or rule). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall pay sanctions

16

in the amount of $1,000 to Defendant within 30 days of the date of this Order. Additionally,

17

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve written responses to Defendant’s document requests by no later than

18

September 14, 2012. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the substance and sufficiency of

19

Plaintiffs’ discovery responses by no later than September 14, 2012. The parties shall comply

20

with the court’s Standing Order re Discovery.

NO

24

RT

H

26
1

28

u
a M. Ry

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge
E

25

27

onn
Judge D

RN

LI

Dated: September 7, 2012

ERED

A

23

O ORD
IT IS S

R NIA

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FO

22

S

Future failures to comply with court orders may result in sanctions.

RT
U
O

21

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

timely file documents, have been admonished twice for failing to observe court deadlines, and

10

United States District Court

9

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

Plaintiffs’ counsel also asserted that he had served documents responsive to Defendant’s
requests some “weeks ago.” However, Defendant’s counsel responded that Plaintiffs had served
documents, but not written responses or objections to the requests, on August 13, 2012, after the August
10, 2012 court-ordered deadline.

2