Prater v. Goodwin et al

Filing 78

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 47 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 54 , 55 plaintiff's discovery dispute reports. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2016)

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
12

CHRISTOPHER PRATER,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Case No. 5:14-cv-04876-HRL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S
DISCOVERY DISPUTE REPORTS

v.
IRVIN GOODWIN, HVEHF VETERAN
CENTER,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55

Defendants.
Having reviewed plaintiff’s discovery requests and defendant’s objections, the court rules
on plaintiff’s request for an order compelling discovery as follows:

20

Interrogatories to Defendant Goodwin

21

Plaintiff’s motion to compel an answer to Interrogatory 1 is denied as moot because

22
23

defendant sufficiently answered it.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel an answer to Interrogatory 2 is granted in part and denied in

24

part. Defendant is correct that each of plaintiff’s interrogatories include a number of discrete

25

subparts that count as separate interrogatories. However, Interrogatory 2 does not exceed the

26

presumptive limit simply because defendant’s response happened to include 16 individuals.

27

Accordingly, defendant shall supplement his answer to Interrogatory 2 by providing the requested

28

information for the 9th through 16th witnesses identified in response to Interrogatory 1.

1

Defendant’s supplemental response shall be served by January 22, 2016.

2

Construing Interrogatory 3 as a request to identify witnesses that defendants may use to

3

support their defenses, plaintiff’s motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory is granted to

4

the extent defendants did not already provide this information in their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 initial

5

disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). However, defendants shall not be required to

6

disclose any witnesses that they may use solely for impeachment. Defendant’s supplemental

7

answer shall be served by January 22, 2016. This discovery is otherwise denied because this court

8

generally does not require disclosure of trial witnesses until just prior to the Final Pretrial

9

Conference.

10

Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to the remaining interrogatories is denied on the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

grounds that the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the

12

needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources and relative access to

13

information, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; or, the interrogatories,

14

including discrete subparts, exceed the presumptive limit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 33.

15

Requests for Production

16

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the insurance information sought by Request 13 is granted

17

inasmuch as that is information each party is required to provide as part of its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)

18

initial disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). Defendant shall produce the requested

19

document (if any) by January 22, 2016.

20

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents is otherwise denied. Defendant

21

sufficiently responded to Requests 1, 10, 14, and 16. Requests 7 and 12 are denied as moot. (If

22

defendants intend to present any testifying experts, expert disclosures were due by November 16,

23

2015. If no such disclosures were made, then that would indicate defendants do not intend to

24

present expert testimony at trial.) Requests 8-9 are denied insofar as this court generally does not

25

require such information to be disclosed until just prior to the Final Pretrial Conference. As for

26

the remaining requests, they either do not specify the categories of documents sought with

27

requisite particularity; seek irrelevant information; or, the burden or expense of the discovery

28

outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the
2

1

parties’ resources and relative access to information, and the importance of the discovery in

2

resolving the issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), 34.

3
4

SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2016

5
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
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
3

1
2

5:14-cv-04876-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Christopher Kyle Prater

[e-mail]

3
Jennifer J. Capabianco

[e-mail], [e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9
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