United States of America et al v. The County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 261

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 180 relator's motion for sanctions re interrogatories and document requests. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION UNITED STATES ex rel. DONNA M. McLEAN and THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel DONNA M. McLEAN, v. Plaintiffs, No. C05-01962 HRL ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RELATOR'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RE INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS [Re: Docket No. 180] *E-FILED 1/22/2009*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, KENNETH BORELLI, LAWRENCE GALLEGOS, EPIFANIO ("J.R.") REYNA, TANYA BEYERS, DR. DEE SCHAFFER, DR. TOMMIJEAN THOMAS, DR. RICHARD PERILLO and DOES 1-100, Defendants. /

Relator Donna McLean moves for evidentiary sanctions re several interrogatories and document requests served on defendant County of Santa Clara ("County"). She also seeks an order directing the County to pay her reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing the instant motion. The County opposes the motion. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the motion in part and denies it in part. The instant discovery dispute concerns certain requests which were served by McLean's third and current counsel (William Dresser) after McLean's second attorney (Michael Millen)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

moved to withdraw but before the court issued its order permitting Millen's withdrawal. At that time, the County took the position that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g), it was not obliged to respond to the discovery requests at all. McLean subsequently filed a motion to compel. This court granted that motion in part. Although McLean failed to show why she could not have served the requests sooner, the court concluded that, in the interests of justice, the County should respond to them (save for a few which were deemed to be duplicative and unreasonably broad). McLean now contends that the County has violated that order by allegedly failing to properly answer interrogatories and produce responsive documents. However, this court's prior order concerned whether the County should be compelled to respond to the requests at all. The issue now presented by the instant motion is whether the County's discovery responses to Interrogatory Nos. 14-19 and Document Request Nos. 25-32 are deficient ­ and if so, whether terminating sanctions are warranted or whether the County should be made to provide further responses. With respect to Interrogatory No. 14 and Document Request No. 29, the motion is denied. At the motion hearing, McLean agreed that, in view of the voluntary dismissal of her claims on behalf of the State of California, the information sought by these requests is no longer relevant. To the extent that any other interrogatory or document request reasonably may be construed as seeking information about funding received from the state, the motion is also denied as to them for the same reason. The motion is granted in part as to Document Request No. 31. The court agrees that the request, as drafted, is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. However, at the motion hearing, relator clarified that she does not seek juvenile court records. Instead, she said that she seeks information pertaining to one particular fiscal form ­ not identified to the court, but which she offered to show to defendants. The motion as to this request is granted; however, the request will be limited to (a) documents evidencing fiscal adjustments, (b) the particular form McLean offered to share with defendants and (c) to the time period from 2001 to the present. Also, the court assumes the documents are maintained together on discrete "files" or one electronically stored and readily retrievable. It does not require defendant to search through individual 2

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

"client" files. Non-privileged, responsive documents that have not already been produced (if any) shall be produced no later than February 4, 2009. As for the remaining discovery requests in dispute ­ Interrogatory Nos. 15-19 and Document Request Nos. 25-28, 30 and 32, the motion is denied. On the record presented, this court finds that no sanctions are warranted. Additionally, McLean has not convincingly or clearly explained why she is entitled to the requested discovery or how proportionality and other requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 have been satisfied. McLean's request for payment of her attorney's fees and costs is denied. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 22, 2009 HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:05-cv-1962 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Donna M McLean [e-mail] Joan Eve Trimble [e-mail], [e-mail] Melissa R. Kiniyalocts [e-mail] Orley Brandt Caudill , Jr [e-mail], [e-mail] Richard Augustus Swenson [e-mail], [e-mail] Sara McLean [e-mail] Sara Winslow [e-mail], [e-mail] Stephen H. Schmid [e-mail] Virginia Stewart Alspaugh [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] William C. Dresser [e-mail] Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Copy of order mailed to: Julia Ann Clayton California Attorney General's Office 455 Golden Gate Avenue # 11000 San Francisco , CA 94102-7004

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4