Morshed v. County of Lake, California

Filing 102

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Compel; denying 42 Motion for Attorney Fees (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 MICHAEL D. MORSHED, Case No. 13-cv-00521-YGR (NJV) Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 11 COUNTY OF LAKE, CALIFORNIA, United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Re: Dkt. Nos. 41, 42 13 14 Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his discovery requests came on for 15 hearing on March 11, 2014. The parties did not argue Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees; the 16 court took the motion for attorney’s fees under submission without oral argument pursuant to N.D. 17 L.R. 7-1(b). The court ruled from the bench on the majority of Plaintiff’s discovery requests; it 18 summarizes those oral rulings below and rules on those matters it took under submission as 19 follows: 20 21 A. Timeliness of Motion to Compel. Plaintiff timely filed his original joint discovery letter brief in accordance with the district 22 court’s standing orders. See Doc. No. 38. Plaintiff did not realize that the district court had 23 referred the matter to the undersigned and thus did not comply with the undersigned’s standing 24 orders, which do not authorize parties to proceed by joint discovery letter brief. The undersigned 25 therefore terminated the joint motion and ordered Plaintiff to file a motion that complied with his 26 orders. Doc. No. 39. Plaintiff eventually filed such a motion. See Doc. No. 41. Although the 27 court agrees that Plaintiff’s present motion technically was filed after the applicable deadline, the 28 undersigned finds that the error was inadvertent and excusable, and that preventing Plaintiff from 1 proceeding under these circumstances would be unfair. Accordingly, the court will address the 2 substantive merits of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 3 4 5 B. Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPD”). RFPD No. 1: granted in part; Defendant shall produce any documents responsive to this request, but only for the years 2000 through 2010. 6 RFPD No. 2: the request is mooted by the court’s order on RFPD No. 1. 7 RFPD No. 3: the request is mooted by the court’s order on RFPD No. 1. 8 RFPD No. 4: the request is mooted by the court’s order on RFPD No. 1. 9 RFPD No. 5: granted in part; to the extent any documents responsive to this RFPD exist but have not already been produced (either as part of Defendant’s initial disclosures or in their 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 further response to RFPD No. 1), Defendant shall produce copies of any policies regarding 12 harassment that were applicable for the years 2000 through 2010. 13 RFPD No. 7: as worded, the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request accordingly is denied, 15 except with respect to the personnel files of the individuals Plaintiff provides to defense counsel in 16 connection with RFPD No. 49. 17 RFPD No. 8: as worded, the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request accordingly is denied, 19 except with respect to the personnel files of the individuals Plaintiff provides to defense counsel in 20 connection with RFPD No. 49. 21 RFPD No. 9: denied. 22 RFPD No. 11: denied. 23 RFPD No. 12: as worded, the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably 24 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request accordingly is denied, 25 except with respect to the personnel files of the individuals Plaintiff provides to defense counsel in 26 connection with RFPD No. 49. 27 28 RFPD No. 17: granted in part; Defendant shall review personnel policies for responsive documents and produce any responsive documents to Plaintiff; Defendant shall produce the 2 1 announcement for 2008 promotion to sergeant, if it is available. 2 RFPD No. 18: denied. 3 RFPD No. 21: denied; Defendant represents it already has produced all responsive 4 5 6 7 documents. RFPD No. 22: denied; Defendant represents it already has provided all existing documents relating to Plaintiff’s complaints of harassment. RFPD No. 39: granted in part; Defendant shall list by Bates number any and all documents 8 it produced in this action that support the affirmative defense that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by 9 the doctrine of unclean hands. 10 RFPD No. 40: granted in part; Defendant shall list by Bates number any and all documents United States District Court Northern District of California 11 it produced in this action that support the affirmative defense that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by 12 waiver and/or estoppel. 13 RFPD No. 43: granted in part, but only for the years 2005 through 2008. 14 RFPD No. 46: granted in part; Defendant shall produce any documents responsive to this 15 16 17 18 request, but only for the years 2000 through 2010. RFPD No. 48: denied; the request is vague, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. RFPD No. 49: granted in part; Plaintiff shall provide to defense counsel a list of Plaintiff’s 19 supervisors or managers (not to exceed 15 names), and Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff any 20 documents constituting proof that those individuals attended training sessions or seminars 21 regarding antidiscrimination, equal employment opportunity, harassment and affirmative action. 22 RFPD No. 51: denied, to the extent Defendant produces a privilege log listing any 23 documents it withheld on the ground that the documents are privileged. Plaintiff may specifically 24 challenge Defendant’s withholding of these documents if he contends that the documents are not 25 privileged. 26 27 28 RFPD No. 52: denied; Defendant represents that it is not in possession, custody or control of any responsive documents. RFPD No. 67: granted in part; Defendant shall conduct an email search regarding the 3 1 2 3 internal affairs investigation of Plaintiff and produce any responsive documents. RFPD No. 68: granted in part; Defendant shall conduct an email search regarding the internal affairs investigation of Plaintiff and produce any responsive documents. 4 RFPD No. 69: granted in part; Defendant shall produce any documents that were in the 5 possession of the affiant at the time he signed the affidavit in support of the search warrant the 6 parties discussed at the hearing. 7 8 9 RFPD Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 64: granted in part; Defendant shall conduct an email search regarding all emails that relate or refer to Plaintiff between 2000 and 2010. C. Special Interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 10: withdrawn by Plaintiff. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Interrogatory No. 11: withdrawn by Plaintiff. 12 Interrogatory No. 12: granted in part; Defendant shall identify Plaintiff’s direct supervisors 13 between 2005 and 2008. 14 Interrogatory No. 13: withdrawn by Plaintiff. 15 Interrogatory No. 20: withdrawn by Plaintiff. 16 Interrogatory No. 21: granted in part. To the extent any person provided information that 17 was not contained in a document produced to Plaintiff, but which Defendant relied upon in 18 denying the allegations of the operative complaint or in asserting its defenses, Defendant shall 19 identify that person. 20 Interrogatory No. 22: withdrawn by Plaintiff. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 2 D. Motion for Attorney’s Fees. As is evidenced by the court’s rulings and the requests Plaintiff withdrew during the March 3 11, 2014 hearing, Defendant’s refusal to produce much of the requested documents and 4 information was substantially justified. Moreover, as the proceedings made clear, the parties 5 should have attempted to confer more thoroughly before seeking relief from the court. Plaintiff’s 6 motion for attorney’s fees is denied. 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2, 2014 ______________________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?