Delgado et al v. Deanda et al

Filing 86

ORDER re 85 Supplemental Discovery Letter Brief to Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 4/22/2014. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2014)

Download PDF
1 *E-Filed: April 22, 2014* 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 MARTIN DELGADO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 No. C10-02799 HRL ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO DDJR#1 MARIA DEANDA, ET AL., 14 15 [Re: Docket No. 85] Defendants. ____________________________________/ 16 On March 24, 2014, the Court ordered Defendants to serve new notices of deposition and 17 requests for production to occur between April 3 and April 7, 2014. Plaintiffs were ordered to 18 appear at their depositions with responsive documents and to serve written responses or objections 19 at least one day prior.1 According to Defendants Supplemental Report to DDJR#1, they timely 20 served the notices setting deposition and production dates for April 3 and April 4. However, on 21 April 2, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email to Defendants’ counsel indicating that he would be 22 unavailable for the depositions, and he suggested postponing the depositions to April 8 or later, in 23 violation of the Order. Defendants now request a second Court order for Plaintiffs to appear at their 24 depositions on April 24 and 25 with responsive documents, and they request that any objections are 25 1 26 27 28 In the order, the Court incorrectly stated that Defendants noticed depositions and related document requests for only two of the four plaintiffs, one on February 13 (“Delgado Request”) and one on February 14 (“Martinez Request”). In fact, Defendants noticed depositions and document requests for all four plaintiffs, two on February 13 and two for February 14. Accordingly, the Court’s analysis and order for relief pertaining to the “Delgado Request” applied to both Martin Delgado and Ricardo Delgado, and likewise, the “Martinez Request” refers to both Angel Martinez and Adrain Alcotzi. 1 deemed waived. Moreover, Defendants request that Plaintiffs be ordered to provide and pay for their 2 own certified interpreter for their depositions. Plaintiffs have not responded. The Court grants most of Defendants’ requested relief. Plaintiffs are ordered to appear for 3 4 their depositions on April 24 and April 25 and to produce responsive documents.2 Additionally, any 5 objections to Defendants requests for production have been waived. The Court will not order 6 Plaintiffs to produce their own interpreter for the depositions. However, Defendants may move for 7 an order awarding them the cost of an interpreter as well as any other costs and fees incurred on 8 account of Plaintiffs’ violation of the Court’s order. Moreover, Plaintiffs and their counsel are 9 cautioned that failure to abide by this order may expose them to the full range of sanctions, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 including dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: April 22, 2014 13 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 28 Although the time between this order and the date for compliance is short, Plaintiffs will have been on notice of the deposition date for at least 14 days, and the requests for production of documents were first served over three months ago. 2 1 C10-02799 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 2 Adam Wang,,, 3 Adam Lee Pedersen 4 5 6 Robert Fried,,,, 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. 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?