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)

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 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,,,, 3 Oscar Salinas 4 5 6 7 Stacey Lynn Leask,, William Charles Teeling,, 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

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?