Adams v. Kraft et al
Filing
114
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 98 defendants' Motion to Compel; denying 100 defendants' Motion for Sanctions. 4/26/2011 hearing is vacated. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2011)
1
2
*E-FILED 04-21-2011*
3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
7
No. C10-00602 LHK (HRL)
BERRY LYNN ADAMS,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
15
DANIEL L. KRAFT; PHILLIP HAUCK; KIRK
LINGENFELTER; K.P. BEST; J.I. STONE;
CHIP BOCKMAN; R. CALLISON; and SCOTT
SIPES,
16
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL; AND (2)
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS
[Re: Docket Nos. 98 and 100]
Defendants.
/
17
18
Defendants move for an order compelling plaintiff to respond to their discovery
19
requests. They also move for sanctions. Plaintiff opposes the motions. These matters are
20
deemed appropriate for determination without oral argument, and the April 26, 2011 hearings
21
are vacated. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this
22
court grants in part and denies in part defendants’ motion to compel and denies their motion for
23
sanctions.
24
Defendants first propounded interrogatories and requests for production on plaintiff in
25
September 2010, then re-propounded those requests in December 2010 and January 2011
26
(modified to reflect the allegations of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint). Defendants
27
granted plaintiff several extensions of time to serve his discovery responses, with the final
28
deadlines for plaintiff’s responses being March 16 and March 18, 2011. When plaintiff failed to
1
serve his discovery responses by those dates, defendants filed the instant motion to compel and
2
motion for sanctions. They request an order requiring plaintiff to answer their interrogatories
3
and produce all responsive documents without objection. They also request that plaintiff and
4
his attorney be ordered to reimburse defendants for the fees and costs incurred in bringing the
5
instant motions, as well as their motion for an order shortening time.
6
The failure to timely respond to a discovery request constitutes a waiver of any
7
objection. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th
8
Cir.1992). Nevertheless, courts have broad discretion to grant relief, on a case-by-case basis,
9
from any such waiver upon a showing of good cause. See Blumenthal v. Drudge, 186 F.R.D.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
236, 240 (D. D.C. 1999).
Plaintiff says that he was justified in not serving his discovery responses by the due
12
dates because (1) on March 8, 2011, Judge Koh issued an order granting in part and denying in
13
part defendants’ motion to dismiss his First Amended Complaint (FAC), with leave to amend as
14
to some claims; (2) defendants filed the instant motions some two weeks later, knowing that
15
plaintiff would be filing a Second Amended Complaint (SAC); (3) plaintiff’s SAC was filed on
16
April 7, 2011; and (4) plaintiff does not yet know whether defendants will answer the
17
complaint. In other words, plaintiff argues that defendants’ motions should be denied because
18
the requests at issue were, in his view, prematurely served and were, in any event, mooted by
19
the filing of the SAC. He further contends that he should be excused from responding to any
20
discovery until after defendants file an answer.
21
Although plaintiff has now filed his SAC, the essence of plaintiff’s allegations appear to
22
be the same. That is, he alleges various constitutional violations of his First, Fourth and
23
Fourteenth Amendment rights, including false arrest, excessive force, and unlawful search.
24
And, although defendants have not submitted to this court copies of their discovery requests, it
25
seems likely that the requests would encompass information pertinent to plaintiff’s current
26
allegations, notwithstanding that they might reference allegations that were asserted in his FAC.
27
More to the point, plaintiff’s arguments to this court essentially are the same request for relief
28
that Judge Koh has denied—once, reportedly at the December 2010 case management
2
1
conference,1 and again more recently—with prejudice—in her March 22, 2011 order denying
2
plaintiff’s motion for protective order. (See Docket No. 101).
3
Nevertheless, to the extent the subject discovery requests pertain solely to claims that
4
either (1) have been dismissed with prejudice or (2) have not been revived in the SAC,
5
defendants’ motion to compel is denied. Their motion to compel otherwise is granted as
6
follows: Within ten days from the date of this order, and to the extent he has not already done
7
so,2 plaintiff shall answer defendants’ interrogatories and produce all responsive documents
8
without objection. To the extent plaintiff believes that any discovery response or document
9
produced legitimately implicates his privacy interests, he shall produce that information; but, he
may designate the information pursuant to a suitable protective order, notwithstanding his
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
waiver of objections.
12
As for defendants’ motion for sanctions, this court finds that defendants have not been
13
seriously prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay in serving his discovery responses. Defendants say that
14
they wanted to secure the subject discovery before the parties’ scheduled April 28, 2011
15
mediation. The record, however, indicates that defendants repeatedly extended the deadlines
16
for plaintiff’s responses—including, on more than one occasion, on a unilateral basis after
17
plaintiff’s responses were overdue—even when defendants believed that further extensions
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants say that, at the December 2, 2010 case management conference,
they specifically advised the court that they would move to dismiss plaintiff’s then soon-tobe filed First Amended Complaint (FAC) and requested a discovery stay on that basis.
Plaintiff contends that defendants did not, at that time, make it clear to the court that they
intended to move for dismissal. He believes that the court declined to stay discovery at that
time on the assumption that defendants would answer his FAC. Suffice to say that Judge
Koh has made it clear in her March 22, 2011 order denying plaintiff’s motion for protective
order that she disfavors any discovery stay.
1
2
While the instant motions were being briefed, plaintiff reportedly served
responses to some of defendants’ discovery requests. Defendants say that plaintiff has yet to
respond to discovery requests from Best, Stone, Callison, and Sipes. They also argue that the
responses that have been produced are deficient. The sufficiency of plaintiff’s responses,
however, are not before the court on the instant motion.
3
1
were not warranted. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for sanctions is denied.
2
3
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 21, 2011
4
HOWARD R. LLOYD
5
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1
5:10-cv-00602-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2
Daniel B. Alweiss daniel.alweiss@doj.ca.gov, sobalvarro.blanca@doj.ca.gov,
tyler.pon@doj.ca.gov, yebonya.collins@doj.ca.gov
3
Kathleen Wells
lioness@got.net
4
5
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.
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
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?