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