Sepehry-Fard v. GreenPoint Mortgage Fundiing, Inc., et al

Filing 120

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 93 Motion for Leave to File (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2014)

Download PDF
1 *E-Filed: March 11, 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THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC., ET AL., No. C13-04535-EJD (HRL) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO COMPEL [Re: Docket No. 93] Defendants. _____________________________________/ 17 Plaintiff Fareed Sepehry-Fard sues defendants for quiet title. The undersigned previously 18 denied Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery and ordered that discovery shall not commence 19 until the parties have held their Rule 26(f) conference. See Dkt. 75. The order further required that 20 “in the event discovery disputes arise, the parties shall comply with the undersigned’s Standing 21 Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes.” Id. The parties held their Rule 26(f) conference on January 22 10, 2014, and Plaintiff served discovery requests the next day. On February 14, Plaintiff filed the 23 instant “Motion for Leave of Court to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Request for 24 Production.” See Dkt. 93. Defendant California Reconveyance Company (“CRC”) opposed the 25 motion. See Dkt. 107. The remaining defendants did not respond. The matter is deemed suitable 26 for determination without oral argument, and the March 18, 2014, hearing is vacated. See Civil L.R. 27 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, the motion is DENIED. 28 1 Plaintiff argues that the court should issue an order compelling defendants to respond to his 2 discovery requests because they failed to do so by the February 13, 2014, deadline, and he has in 3 good faith attempted to meet and confer with the defendants in an effort to obtain the discovery 4 without court intervention. However, despite his assertion that defendants did not respond to his 5 requests, in his concurrently filed “Addendum,” he attaches responses received from all the 6 defendants except for CRC. He clarifies that, although these defendants did actually respond, they 7 provided mere “boiler plate ‘responses’” meant to fraudulently evade discovery. Several days later, 8 Plaintiff filed a “Second Addendum” in which he attaches CRC’s responses and similarly objects to 9 their inadequacy. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 In its opposition, CRC asserts that it responded to Plaintiff’s requests for discovery in four 11 parts, three of which were timely served; however, due to clerical error, the fourth part was not 12 served until March 3, 2014. Additionally, despite his declaration otherwise, Plaintiff did not, in fact, 13 attempt to meet and confer with CRC in an effort to resolve any of the purported inadequacies of 14 their discovery responses prior to seeking judicial intervention as required by Rule 37(a)(1) of the 15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Civil Local Rule 37-1(a), and the undersigned’s Standing Order 16 re: Civil Discovery Disputes (“Standing Order”). 17 The Standing Order generally provides that parties may seek judicial intervention only after 18 an in-person meeting between lead counsel fails to resolve the discovery dispute, in which case the 19 parties shall file a Discovery Dispute Joint Report. “Absent leave of court, formal noticed discovery 20 motions may no longer be filed and, if filed contrary to this order, will not be heard.” 21 Although not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff is not directly moving for an order to 22 compel, which would violate the Standing Order, but is seeking leave of court to file a motion to 23 compel despite the Standing Order. So construed, the motion is denied. The court doubts Plaintiffs’ 24 assertion that he made a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute prior to seeking court intervention 25 given the immediacy with which he filed the motion, and he has otherwise failed to demonstrate any 26 cause for departing from the court’s customary procedures. If Plaintiff disputes the adequacy of 27 defendants’ discovery responses, he must scrupulously adhere to the requirements set forth in the 28 2 1 Standing Order. The Court cautions Plaintiff that future attempts to circumvent the Standing Order 2 will be summarily denied. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 11, 2014 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 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 1 C13-04535 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 2 Andrew Alexander Wood 3 Anne Pellegrom Daher 4 Helen Dan-Hwei Hsueh 5 Joseph W. Guzzetta,, 6 Philip Alan McLeod, 7 C13-04535 Notice will be mailed to: 8 Fareed Sepehry-Fard 12309 Saratoga Creek Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10,,, 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. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?