Espinoza et al v. C & C Security Patrol, Inc. et al

Filing 72

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying as moot 60 plaintiffs' motion to compel written discovery responses. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LEONARDO ESPINOZA and SERGIO ROQUE, v. Plaintiffs, No. C08-01522 JW (HRL) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES [Docket No. 60] *E-FILED 12-01-2009*

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

C&C SECURITY PATROL, INC. HERMENEGILDO COUGH, MARCEL LOPEZ, GILBERT MARTINEZ, Defendants. /

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling defendant C&C Security Patrol ("C&C Security") to produce documents, answer interrogatories, and respond to requests for admission. Defendants oppose the motion. This court deems the matter suitable for determination without oral argument, and the December 8, 2009 hearing is vacated. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Although the instant lawsuit originally was filed as a putative class action for alleged wage and hour violations, plaintiffs have recently amended their complaint withdrawing all class allegations. Plaintiffs acknowledge that a large portion of the requests at issue, which were served before they filed their amended complaint, were designed to seek class-wide discovery. However, they confirm that the instant motion seeks to compel discovery only as to the named plaintiffs. According to plaintiffs, defendant stonewalled legitimate discovery by responding with nothing but boilerplate objections. C&C Security contends that (a) it had

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

legitimate bases for the objections it asserted and (b) plaintiffs failed to adequately meet-andconfer about the requests in question. Defendant nonetheless agrees to serve supplemental responses as to the two named plaintiffs. Because it believes that the instant motion was entirely unnecessary, C&C Security requests an order directing plaintiffs to reimburse its attorney's fees incurred in connection with this motion. Perhaps there is some basis for plaintiffs' view that defendant evaded its reasonably construed discovery obligations. At the same time, however, plaintiffs made little effort to meaningfully meet-and-confer about the requests in dispute before seeking judicial intervention. Given C&C Security's representation that it will serve supplemental responses, this court orders defendant to serve its supplemental responses to all of the requests at issue no later than December 8, 2009. Plaintiffs' motion is otherwise denied as moot. Defendant's request for reimbursement of its attorney's fees is denied. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 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

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:08-cv-01522-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to: Adam Wang [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Mark A. Hagopian [e-mail] Sejal Thakkar [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.

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 3