Ortiz v. Amazon.com LLC et al

Filing 90

ORDER re 87 Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/4/2018. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. No. 87

AMAZON.COM LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03820-JSW (MEJ)

12
The Court ordered Plaintiff Michael Ortiz to show cause why sanctions should not be

13
14

imposed for filing a discovery letter that did not include Defendant Golden State FC LLC’s

15

revisions and that sought relief the Court addressed in a prior Order. OSC, Dkt. No. 87; see May

16

25, 2018 Disc. Order, Dkt. No. 82; PMK Ltr., Dkt. No. 84. Plaintiff explains that “while Plaintiff

17

was preparing to refile its joint letters, the Court issued Orders with respect to Defendants’ two

18

competing letters . . . which had sought to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and phone records” which

19

“[c]ounsel . . . first saw . . . midday or late May 25, 2018.” OSC Resp. at 2, Dkt. No. 89. Plaintiff

20

characterizes the filing as “a simple clerical error made by a newly employed filing clerk” who

21

“filed . . . the partially modified letter rendered moot by the Court’s late afternoon Order.” Id. at

22

2-3.

23

This does not excuse Plaintiff’s conduct. First, Plaintiff does not address the fact that on

24

May 25 at 3:54 p.m. – approximately one hour prior to Plaintiff’s filing of the PMK Letter –

25

counsel for Golden State Nancy Villarreal emailed Mr. Alvarado, stating Golden State’s position

26

that “the [May 25, 2018] Order rendered moot the relief sought in the [PMK] Discovery Letter”

27

and that Golden State “would prefer not to burden the court with an unnecessary discovery letter

28

on an issue that the Court had already ruled on”; however, “to the extent Plaintiff nevertheless

1

wished to proceed with filing the Discovery Letter regarding the PMK depositions, Defendant had

2

revised the Discovery Letter to reflect the Order and Defendant’s request that Plaintiff not file the

3

Discovery Letter.” Stmt. at 2, Dkt. No. 85; id. at ECF pp.4-5 (Villarreal Decl.); id. at ECF p.7

4

(Exhibit A) (email); see OSC at 2 (noting Ms. Villarreal’s email and revisions). This email

5

attached Golden State’s revisions in light of the Court’s May 25, 2018 Discovery Order. See id.

6

Plaintiff also does not address Ms. Villarreal’s declaration that at 4:08 p.m., Mr. Alvarado emailed

7

Ms. Villarreal with changes to another discovery letter. Stmt. at 2; Villarreal Decl. ¶ 3.
Thus, not only did Plaintiff have notice of the Court’s May 25, 2018 Discovery Order via a

9

notice of electronic filing (see NEF, Dkt. No. 84), but Golden State’s counsel personally informed

10

Mr. Alvarado of the Order’s issuance, contents, and impact on their yet-to-be-filed PMK Letter.1

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

Both of these notices occurred before Plaintiff filed the PMK Letter. Moreover, in the parties’

12

Deposition Letter, Golden State requested an order for “Plaintiff to appear for his deposition

13

before he can compel or proceed with any additional depositions of Defendant’s witnesses” – the

14

very issue presented in the PMK Letter. Dep. Ltr. at 3, Dkt. No. 79. Plaintiff could reasonably

15

expect that the Court would address this requested relief when it ruled on the Deposition Letter in

16

its Discovery Order. See May 25, 2018 Disc. Order at 4-5.
Second, even assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Alvarado did not see Ms. Villarreal’s email or

17
18

the May 25, 2018 Discovery Order until after he filed the PMK Letter, Plaintiff did not file an

19

amended PMK Letter or otherwise attempt to correct the record once he learned the version of the

20

PMK Letter that was filed did not include Golden State’s revisions. Nor does the record show that

21

Plaintiff sought to withdraw the PMK Letter.

22

Finally, Plaintiff’s attempt to blame the filing clerk is not well taken. The record shows

23

attorney Cesar Alvarado filed the Deposition Letter. Docket Entry, Dkt. No. 84. “An ECF user

24

may authorize another person to electronically file a document using the user ID and password of

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff represents “[t]he Court has yet to issue a ruling” on the parties’ Class List Letter. OSC
Resp. at 2 n1; see Class List Ltr., Dkt. No. 83. This misstates the record. The Court issued an
order on this Letter before Plaintiff filed his OSC Response. See May 31, 2018 Disc. Order, Dkt.
No. 88.
2

1

the ECF user. Nevertheless, the ECF user retains full responsibility for any document so filed.”

2

Civ. L.R. 5-1(c)(4) (emphasis added). The responsibility to file an accurate letter falls squarely on

3

counsel’s shoulders – not the filing clerk’s.

4

Based on this record, the Court finds monetary sanctions are appropriate. However, the

5

Court STAYS the imposition of sanctions. The Court may lift the stay if it finds Plaintiff commits

6

future discovery abuses. At that time, the Court will request a declaration from Golden State

7

calculating its fees and costs associated with the PMK Letter and its Statement.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: June 4, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3