Salinas v. Palo Alto University et al

Filing 82

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 66 plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2017)

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
OSCAR SALINAS,

12

Case No.5:15-cv-06336-HRL

Plaintiff,

13
v.

14

PALO ALTO UNIVERSITY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 66

17
Plaintiff filed the present motion to compel nearly one month after the deadline for

18
19

bringing such motions, and he also failed to comply with the court’s Standing Order re Civil

20

Discovery Disputes. The court does not condone plaintiff’s rather blatant failure to comply with

21

applicable rules and court orders.1 Nevertheless, at the March 21, 2017 status conference, the

22

court said that it would address plaintiff’s motion to compel, notwithstanding the procedural

23

defects.
Having considered the moving and responding papers, the court now rules on plaintiff’s

24
25

motion to compel as follows:

26
27
1

28

Indeed, the Case Management Order reminded the parties of the pertinent deadlines and standing
orders. (Dkt. 57).

1

Interrogatories, Set 2

2

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 6 is granted as follows:

3

The court questions the materiality and ultimate import of the distinction plaintiff draws between

4

the judgment of the University (what he refers to as “final decisionmakers”) and that of the

5

individuals named in this interrogatory. Nevertheless, because the interrogatory reasonably could

6

be read as plaintiff contends, defendant shall serve a supplemental response that addresses the

7

judgment of the final decisionmakers. Defendant’s response shall be served by May 12, 2017.

8

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further answers to the interrogatories at issue is otherwise denied.

9

Defendant has properly answered the questions that were posed.
Documents

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

In its December 16, 2016 discovery order, defendant was ordered to produce materials

12

pertaining to three patients, with patient-identifying information redacted. (Dkt. 63). Plaintiff

13

maintains that a number of materials are missing. Defendant avers that some DVDs were

14

destroyed in the ordinary course of business prior to the filing of this lawsuit. The record

15

otherwise demonstrates that defendant searched all locations where responsive files were stored

16

and produced all materials that were found. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further information is

17

denied.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 2, 2017

20
21
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2

5:15-cv-06336-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Michael Joseph Vartain [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

3
Oscar Salinas

[e-mail]

4
5
6
7

Stacey Lynn Leask [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
William Charles Teeling [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

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