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)

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 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 ecg@smootpc.com jleyton@pettitkohn.com, vbrowne@pettitkohn.com jlutz@pettitkohn.com, kwood@pettitkohn.com kendra@msllp.com Paul Joseph Smoot pjs@smootpc.com, ecg@smootpc.com 7 Peter Collins McMahon peter@msllp.com, kendra@msllp.com 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?