Guthmann v. Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership et al

Filing 63

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re #38 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 2. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2017)

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
12

STACY GUTHMANN,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.5:16-cv-02680-LHK (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 2

v.
CC-PALO ALTO, INC. D/B/A VI AT
PALO ALTO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 38

Defendants.

17
18

This discovery dispute is about the adequacy of defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s

19

Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”). The court issued an Interim Order requiring

20

defendants to submit all new responses (Dkt. 39), and the defendants did so (Dkt. 43). Plaintiff

21

was given time to file a reply (in which the plaintiff could have flagged any remaining

22

insufficiencies), but plaintiff filed nothing.

23

The court then issued a Second Interim Order requesting the parties to affirm that the

24

discovery dispute is resolved. (Dkt. 53). In the joint Supplemental Status Report (Dkt. 62) they

25

filed in response to this Order the defendants say the dispute is resolved. Plaintiff disagrees.

26

Plaintiff makes three arguments. First, she says she is “convinced” that defendants

27

continue to withhold responsive documents. The basis for her conviction is her assertion that

28

lately defendants have produced additional responsive documents, even though they earlier said

1

there were no more. Even if that is correct, it does not necessarily mean that there are still more.

2

Nonetheless, within 5 days from the filing of this order, an officer or agent of each defendant, with

3

authority to bind that defendant, will submit a declaration under penalty of perjury that all

4

responsive documents have been produced.

5

The plaintiff’s second argument, raised now for the first time (and without any

6

elaboration), is that recent discovery responses by defendants “contradict or alter previous

7

answers.” She does not say what the court’s response to this allegation should be, and perhaps she

8

means it as a make-weight for her next argument.

9

Finally, she argues (also for the first time and without elaboration) that defendants
withheld important documents until after close of fact discovery, and that she intends to bring a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

motion to reopen discovery. Any such motion should be addressed to the presiding judge.

12
13

SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 5, 2017

14
15
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:16-cv-02680-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Erica Christina Gonzalez

3

Jenna Heather Leyton-Jones

4

Jennifer Nicole Lutz

5

Kendra Lin Orr

6

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Paul Joseph Smoot

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7
Peter Collins McMahon

[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