Molex v. The City and County of San Francisco

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting 50 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 56 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 57 Discovery Letter Brief; terminating 67 Motion for Leave to File. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JEANETTE MOLEX,

9

Plaintiff,

Case No.: C-4:11-1282-YGR (KAW)
ORDER

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

vs.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,

13
14

Defendant.

15
16

As explained in the undersigned's May 18, 2012 order, two of the parties' joint letter briefs

17

regarding discovery disputes were filed late. See Dkt # 50, 56, 57. Pursuant to the May 18 order,

18

the parties have filed briefs and declarations explaining the untimeliness. Dkt # 67, 68.

19

The parties agree that plaintiff completed its portions of the joint letters in time for the letters

20

to be filed before the deadline, but defendant did not. See Dkt # 67-1 at 1 (plaintiff's counsel

21

attesting that he "had completed Plaintiff's portion of all four joint letters and delivered them via

22

email to Defendant's counsel on April 23 and 26, 2012, over a week in advance of the filing

23

deadline"); Dkt # 68-1 at 3 (defendant's counsel attesting that she "was not able to provide

24

Defendant's submissions in time for the parties to file the letters by the May 4[] deadline."). As an

25

excuse, defendant's counsel attests that from April 18 to May 3, she had to "attend several collective

26

bargaining meetings lasting numerous hours" as well as prepare a motion for summary judgment in

27

this case. Dkt # 68-1 at 2-3. But defendant did not ask for an extension of time to complete the

28

letters. Regardless, having to attend several long meetings and prepare one motion for summary

1

judgment (which was filed on April 24, ten days before the deadline for filing the joint letters) in a

2

two-week period is not a sufficient excuse for missing a court deadline.
Because defendant caused the joint letters to be untimely without good cause, the court

3
4

disregards defendant's portions of the joint letters. See Local Rule 37-3 ("no motions to compel fact

5

discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery cut-off"); Wood v. Santa Barbara

6

Chamber of Commerce, 705 F.2d 1515, 1519 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1081 (1984)

7

(district court did not abuse its discretion in striking untimely affidavits in opposition to summary

8

judgment motion where party failed to request extension of time or show excusable neglect).
Plaintiff claims that defendants have failed to produce all documents responsive to her

9

shall produce all non-privileged documents responsive to these requests. If defendant has already

12
Northern District of California

requests for production, numbers 2, 14 and 15. Within five days of the date of this order, defendant

11

United States District Court

10

produced all such documents, defendant shall provide plaintiff with a declaration explaining how

13

defendant's diligent search for the documents was conducted and attesting that no responsive

14

documents can be located. If defendant withholds documents on the basis of privilege, defendant

15

shall provide plaintiff with an itemized privilege log complying with federal law.

16

Plaintiff also claims that defendants have not produced a deponent to fully testify regarding

17

categories 8 ("Any and all arbitration decisions modified by Nathaniel Ford from 2004-2010") and

18

10 ("Any and all recommendations by Debra Johnson to modify an Arbitrator's decision from 2004-

19

2010") of plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) notice. Although Debra Johnson testified at a previous

20

deposition, defendant would not allow her to testify about any specific instances where Ford rejected

21

an arbitrator's decision or she recommended that an arbitrator's decision be rejected. See Dkt #57 at

22

12-13 ("we have agreed to produce a witness to testify as to this category minus specific individual

23

cases to preserve these individuals' privacy rights...with respect to [category 10] it's the same thing").

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28

2

1

Accordingly, within 14 days of the date of this order, defendant shall produce a deponent to

2

testify regarding categories 8 and 10 of plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) notice. The information plaintiff

3

seeks can be disclosed in a deposition without violating individuals' privacy rights. Any objections

4

at the deposition on the basis of privacy must be made in good faith and supported by federal law.

5

It is so ordered.

6
7

DATE: May 25, 2012

___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3