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)
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?