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)

Download PDF
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 gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com, vbeechler@kadingbriggs.com 3 Kymberleigh Damron-Hsiao kdh@kadingbriggs.com, mrogers@kadingbriggs.com, vbeechler@kadingbriggs.com 4 5 6 Pamela Williams Pam.Williams1001@gmail.com 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

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?