Williams v. Gyrus ACMI, LP et al

Filing 157

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 147 Discovery Report No. 3. Clerk sent a copy of this order on 10/18/2016 by U.S. Mail to: Pamela Williams, 909 Marina Village Parkway #292, Alameda, CA 94501. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
PAMELA WILLIAMS,

12

Case No.5:14-cv-00805-BLF (HRL)

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER RE DISCOVERY REPORT 3

v.

14

Re: Dkt. No. 147
GYRUS ACMI, LP, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

In this latest flurry of discovery-related filings, defendant Gyrus ACMI, L.P. (GALP)

17
18

seeks an order compelling plaintiff to provide verifications to two sets of interrogatory responses:

19

(1) plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Interrogatories (Set One) and (2) her

20

Response to Defendant’s Interrogatories (Set Two). (Dkt. 147, Exs. C and E). Although titled a

21

“Joint Report,” Discovery Report No. 3 was not jointly submitted by the parties. GALP says it

22

attempted to submit a joint report, to no avail. In her separately filed opposition, plaintiff claims

23

that GALP failed to confer with her before filing the report.1 GALP says that it did, in fact, have

24

an in-person meeting with plaintiff during which she agreed to provide the requested verifications;

25
26
27
28

1

In her opposition, plaintiff also argues that defendant filed the present discovery report without
waiting for a court order permitting defendant to append additional exhibits to its report. Plaintiff
apparently confuses the present discovery report with an administrative motion GALP has filed in
connection with a different discovery dispute. The court will address that other discovery matter
separately.

1
2

but, defendant claims that the verifications were never sent.
Unfortunately, neither side has been particularly observant of the requirements of the

3

undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes. Nevertheless, in view of the October

4

14, 2016 fact discovery cutoff, and the relative simplicity of the issue presented, this court has

5

read and considered all of the papers submitted by the parties in connection with this dispute and

6

concludes that this matter is suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

7

Having considered the parties’ respective arguments, this court now rules as follows:

8

There is no question that plaintiff must verify her interrogatory answers. Rule 33 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs interrogatories to parties, requires the responding

10

party (here, plaintiff) to answer each interrogatory separately and fully “under oath.” Fed. R. Civ.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

P. 33(b)(3). On October 12, 2016, plaintiff filed two documents with the court:

12



One is titled “Plaintiff’s Verification of Discovery Responses,” which states

13

“Plaintiff respectfully submits confirmation that she has served verified responses.”

14

(Dkt. 151 at 1). Plaintiff further notes that on October 11, she asked defendant to

15

withdraw its proposed order compelling her to serve the requested verifications.

16



The other document is titled “Declaration of Pamela Williams in Support of

17

Plaintiff’s Verification of Discovery Responses.” (Dkt. 152). The declaration is

18

entirely blank, but appears to be signed by plaintiff under the statement “I declare

19

under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

20

true and correct and that this declaration was executed on [date] October 12,

21

2016.” (Id.).

22

Although it is not entirely clear what plaintiff intended by these two October 12 filings, this court

23

believes that she may have meant for them to be her verification of the subject interrogatory

24

responses. If that is the case, then her October 12 submissions are insufficient for that purpose.

25

What plaintiff must do is (1) review her Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Interrogatories

26

(Set One) and her Response to Defendant’s Interrogatories (Set Two) and (2) verify in writing

27

under oath that those responses are true and correct. Plaintiff is directed to serve her verifications

28

for those two sets of interrogatory answers no later than October 27, 2016.
2

1
2

For plaintiff’s guidance, this court observes that plaintiff previously served a verification
of a prior set of interrogatory responses as follows:

3

I, the undersigned, say:

4

I am a party to the above entitled action. I have read the foregoing
document,
entitled
PLAINTIFF’S
ANSWERS
TO
INTERROGATORIES, and it is true of my own knowledge, except
as to matters which are therein stated on my information and belief,
and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

5
6
7
8
9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 11, 2016, at Redwood City, CA.
(Dkt. 147, Discovery Report 3, Ex. B at ECF p. 23). However, if plaintiff feels she needs

10
assistance with the preparation of a verification form, she is encouraged to contact the Federal Pro
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Se Program, located in Room 2070 on the Second Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Jose.
12
Appointments may be made by (1) signing up in person at the Federal Pro Se Program office or at
13
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Jose, CA; or (2) by
14
calling 408-297-1480. If she has not already done so, plaintiff is also directed to obtain a copy of
15
16

the court’s Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, available on the court’s website
(http://cand.uscourts.gov) or from the Clerk’s Office.

17
SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: October 17, 2016
19
20
21

HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

5:14-cv-00805-BLF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Glenn Lansing Briggs

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3

Kymberleigh Damron-Hsiao [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

4
5
6

Pamela Williams

[e-mail]

5:14-cv-00805-BLF Notice sent by U.S. Mail on 10/18/2016 to:

7
8
9

Pamela Williams
909 Marina Village Parkway #292
Alameda, CA 94501

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4