Aquino v. County of Monterey Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 277

ORDER DENYING 184 MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/14/2018. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
NICOLAS AQUINO,

8

Case No. 5:14-cv-03387-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

COUNTY OF MONTEREY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

12

Re: Dkt. No. 184

Defendants.

13
Prior to trial, Defendants filed a motion for discovery sanctions because Plaintiff had failed

14
15

to timely notify Defendants that his employment status had changed. Dkt. No. 184. The Court

16

instructed the parties to attempt to resolve this matter without Court intervention and deferred

17

ruling on the question of sanctions until after trial. See Dkt. No. 188. Now that trial has

18

concluded, the Court revisits Defendants’ motion.

19

In their motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to fulfill his obligation under

20

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A) to “supplement . . . [his] disclosure . . . in a timely

21

manner.” Dkt. No. 184. Defendants request that, pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 37,1

22

the Court strike Plaintiff’s pleadings relating to lost earnings or impose other appropriate

23

sanctions. Id.

24

While a party’s obligations under Rule 26 are not to be taken lightly, the Court finds that

25

sanctions are unwarranted. Rule 37(c)(1) exempts a party from sanctions if its failure to provide

26
27
28

1

Defendants state in their motion that they request sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iii), but then
cite caselaw which imposes sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1). Dkt. No. 184 at 4-5.
Case No.: 5:14-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS
1

1

information was harmless. Such was the case here. In rendering its verdict, the jury determined

2

that Plaintiff was entitled to $0 in compensatory damages for past or future lost earnings. Dkt. No.

3

271 at 5. The earlier disclosure of Plaintiff’s changed employment status would not have affected

4

this result. Defendants are also not entitled to sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iii), as there does

5

not appear to be an “order to provide or permit discovery” which Plaintiff “failed to obey.”

6

Accordingly, the Court finds it inappropriate to take further action on this matter.

7

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated:
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

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

Case No.: 5:14-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS
2