Forte et al v. Hyatt Summerfield Suites Pleasanton et al

Filing 112

ORDER regarding 69 Defendant Veronica Villa's Discovery Dispute Letter dated October 9, 2012. Mr. Forte shall serve his responses to Ms. Villa's interrogatories and RFPs no later than November 19, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 11/9/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/9/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ls, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
EUGENE E. FORTE, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-02568 CW (LB)

Plaintiffs,
v.

13
HYATT SUMMERFIELD SUITES, et al.,

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT
VERONICA VILLA’S DISCOVERY
DISPUTE LETTER DATED
OCTOBER 9, 2012

14
15

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17

[Re: ECF No. 69]

I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Eugene Forte, Eileen Forte, Gabrielle Forte, Jordan Forte, Noel Forte, and Juston Forte

18

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Defendants Hyatt Summerfield Suits Pleasanton, Veronica Villa

19

(erroneously sued as Ana Avilla), the City of Pleasanton (sued erroneously as the Pleasanton Police

20

Department), and Pleasanton Police Officers Jerry Nicely, Mardene Lashley, and [First Name

21

Unknown] Martens (collectively, “Defendants”). Ms. Villa filed a letter on October 9, 2012 seeking

22

a court order compelling Mr. Forte to respond to certain discovery requests. Upon consideration of

23

the arguments of the parties and the applicable authority, the court rules as follows.

24

II. BACKGROUND

25

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants in Alameda County Superior Court on March 4,

26
27
28
C 11-02568 CW (LB)
ORDER

1

2011. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, ¶ 1, Ex. A.1 They allege the following claims: (1) wrongful

2

eviction; (2) false arrest and false imprisonment; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4)

3

assault; (5) battery; (6) civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (7) “detention and

4

confinement” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (8) “refusing to neglect and prevent.” See id. Plaintiffs are

5

members of a family who stayed at Hyatt Summerfield Suits Pleasanton on March 6, 2010. Their

6

claims arise out of an altercation between them and Defendants on the night they stayed at the hotel.

7

See generally id., Ex. A.

8

The action was removed to federal court on May 26, 2011. Id. Plaintiffs originally were

20, 2011 because of their counsel’s conflict of interest. 9/20/2011 Order, ECF No. 34. Since then,

11

Plaintiffs have proceeded in pro per. On November 22, 2011, Judge Wilken dismissed Noel Forte’s

12
For the Northern District of California

represented by counsel, but Judge Wilken granted their counsel’s motion to withdraw on September

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

and Juston Forte’s claims because they are minors who cannot represent themselves and no guardian

13

ad litem was requested to represent their interests. See 11/22/2011 Order, ECF No. 35.

14

Ms. Villa served interrogatories, requests for admissions (“RFAs”), and requests for production

15

of documents (“RFPs”) on Mr. Forte on August 29, 2012. 10/9/2012 Letter, ECF No. 69 at 2. His

16

responses to this discovery were due on October 1, 2012, which also was the fact discovery

17

deadline. Id.; Case Management Order, ECF No. 38 at 1. On September 28, 2012, Mr. Forte served

18

his responses to the RFAs. 10/9/2012 Letter, ECF No. 69 at 2. He also sent Ms. Villa’s counsel an

19

e-mail asking for an extension of time to respond to the interrogatories and the RFPs. Id. Ms.

20

Villa’s counsel responded that a court order was necessary to do that and stated that he would not

21

stipulate to an extension. Id. at 2-3. It appears from the docket for this action that no court order

22

was ever entered extending the fact discovery deadline. See generally Docket.

23

On October 9, 2012, Ms. Villa filed a discovery dispute letter that asks the undersigned to

24

compel Mr. Forte to respond to her interrogatories and the RFPs. 10/9/2012 Letter, ECF No. 69.

25

Ms. Villa stated that she did not file a joint letter because she did not believe that Mr. Forte would

26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 11-02568 CW (LB)
ORDER

2

1

cooperate with her. Id. at 1. Judge Wilken referred her letter, and all future discovery disputes, to

2

the undersigned for resolution. Order of Referral, ECF No. 88. The undersigned then issued an

3

order acknowledging the referred dispute, excusing Ms. Villa’s failure to file a joint letter, and

4

allowing Mr. Forte to file a response. Notice of Referral, ECF No. 91 at 1-2. Mr. Forte filed a

5

response to Ms. Villa’s letter on October 18, 2012. Opposition, ECF No. 97.

6
7

III. LEGAL STANDARD
Subject to the limitations imposed by subsection (b)(2)(C), under Federal Rule of Civil

any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be

10

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

11

admissible evidence.” Id. However, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency

12
For the Northern District of California

Procedure 26, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the

13

discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other

14

source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery

15

has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or

16

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the

17

amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and

18

the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

19

IV. DISCUSSION

20

Under Rules 33(b)(2) and 34(b)(2)(A), a party must respond to interrogatories and RFPs within

21

30 days of being served with them. In his letter, Mr. Forte does not contend that the interrogatories

22

and RFPs seek information or documents that are not relevant. See generally Opposition, ECF No.

23

97.2 Instead, Mr. Forte argues that the deadlines for him to respond to the discovery (as well as the

24

deadlines in this action generally) are burdensome in light of his efforts to litigate a possibly-related

25

action in the Eastern District of California. See generally id. He suggests that Ms. Villa knew of

26
27
28

2

Even if he had, the court finds that the interrogatories and RFPs seek discoverable
information and documents because they are relevant to Mr. Forte’s claims and Ms. Villa’s defenses.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
C 11-02568 CW (LB)
ORDER

3

1

this other action and served her interrogatories and RFPs in bad faith as a means to overburden him.

2

See generally id.

3

Mr. Forte’s argument, especially now, is not persuasive. First, he provides no actual evidence to
show Ms. Villa’s bad faith. Second, Mr. Forte does not specify how Ms. Villa's interrogatories and

5

RFPs actually overburden him (i.e., he does not explain why he could not meet the October 1, 2012

6

deadline for his responses). But even if he had, he certainly should have had enough time to respond

7

to the interrogatories and RFPs by now. Mr. Forte sought an extension of time to respond, and by

8

simply not responding, and by causing the undersigned to issue an order compelling him to respond,

9

he essentially has gotten one. The court sees no reason to allow Mr. Forte to delay any further. He

10

filed this action, and he must participate in it. He shall serve responses to Ms. Villa’s interrogatories

11

and RFPs no later than November 16, 2012.3

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

V. CONCLUSION

13

The court GRANTS Ms. Villa's request for an order compelling Mr. Forte to respond to her

14

interrogatories and RFPs. Mr. Forte SHALL serve his responses to Ms. Villa's interrogatories and

15

RFPs no later than November 19, 2012.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 9, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

In her letter, Ms. Villa requests that the fact discovery deadline be extended to allow for
Mr. Forte's responses. 10/9/2012 Letter, ECF No. 69 at 4. An extensions of a case management
deadline is a matter for Judge Wilken. If Ms. Villa still requests such an extension, she should ask
Judge Wilken for it.
C 11-02568 CW (LB)
ORDER

4