Alejandro Picazo v. Randstad US, LP et al

Filing 71

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 61 defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery; and Amending Case Schedule. Fact discovery cutoff: 11/20/2017. Last day for hearing dispositive motions: 1/16/2018 , 10:00 AM. Designation of experts with reports: 2/28/2018. Designation of rebuttal experts with reports: 3/14/2018. Expert discovery cutoff: 4/6/2018. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/1/2018 01:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose. 11 /14/2017 hearing re 57 plaintiff's summary judgment motion vacated, to be re-set to coincide with hearing on defendant's anticipated summary judgment motion.(hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2017) Modified on 10/11/2017 (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF).

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

ALEJANDRO PICAZO,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.5:16-cv-06644-HRL
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND (2) AMENDING CASE SCHEDULE

v.
RANDSTAD US, LP,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 61

17
18

Defendant Randstad US, LP moves to compel further responses to interrogatories,

19

document requests, and requests for admission. Meanwhile, on September 14, plaintiff filed

20

supplemental responses to the requests at issue. Defendant contends that those supplemental

21

responses are still not sufficient. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as

22

well as the oral arguments presented at the October 10, 2017 hearing, the court grants defendant’s

23

motion in part and denies it in part as follows:

24

INTERROGATORIES

25

Interrogatory 1: This interrogatory asks for information about Randstad employees with

26

whom plaintiff has communicated about the allegations in his complaint. Although plaintiff has

27

provided the names of some individuals, he must supplement his response to this interrogatory to

28

provide (a) a description of what he discussed with each of them; (b) the dates of his

1

communications with each person; (c) the place or manner of the communication; (d) any other

2

people who know about his communications with the identified individuals; and (e) identification

3

of any documents that relate to plaintiff’s answer to this interrogatory.

4

Interrogatory 2: This interrogatory asks plaintiff to identify any person that he believes has

5

knowledge about any of the complaint’s allegations. Although plaintiff has provided the names of

6

some individuals, he must provide a description of what each person knows about his allegations,

7

including dates, places, documents, and witnesses related to each person’s knowledge.
Interrogatory 3: This interrogatory asks plaintiff for information about each place he has

8
9

sought employment since July 2016. In view of plaintiff’s supplemental response to Interrogatory
4 (which indicates that plaintiff has not been able to seek other employment since July 7, 2016),

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

no further response will be required for Interrogatory 3.
Interrogatory 4: This interrogatory asks plaintiff to state whether he has been unable to

12
13

seek employment since July 7, 2016 and, if so, the reasons why. Plaintiff appears to have

14

answered this interrogatory. Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to this request is

15

denied.

16

Interrogatory 5: This interrogatory asks plaintiff to identify employers (other than

17

Randstad) for whom he has worked since 2015. And, for each identified employer, he must (a)

18

provide the name, address, and telephone number; (b) identify the type of business; (c) the dates

19

he worked there; (d) the positions he held and his duties and responsibilities for each position; (e)

20

the pay he received, including the dates and amounts of any raises; (f) his supervisors; and (g) the

21

reasons he stopped working there.

22

Interrogatory 6: This interrogatory seeks information about any kind of income plaintiff

23

has received since July 7, 2016. Plaintiff should do his best to identify the amount he has received

24

in food stamps.

25

Interrogatory 7: In response to this interrogatory asking about other grievances or charges,

26

plaintiff responded with information concerning “Wage salary, Labor commission 2014.”

27

Defendant moved to compel a further response, arguing that plaintiff did not sufficiently identify

28

the proceeding. Plaintiff appended papers to his supplemental response that appears to provide
2

1
2
3
4

that information. Defendant’s motion to compel a further answer to this interrogatory is denied.
Interrogatory 8: Defendant’s motion to compel a further response to this request re
plaintiff’s criminal history is denied.
Interrogatory 9: This interrogatory asks for information about health care providers

5

plaintiff has seen since 2015. Although plaintiff has identified some health care providers, for

6

each identified individual, he must do his best to provide all of the information requested by this

7

interrogatory, including (a) the provider’s full name, current business address, and telephone

8

number; (b) the reason for plaintiff’s visits; (c) the diagnosis, prognosis, and course of treatment

9

provided; (d) the date(s) of plaintiff’s visits; (e) the duration of the course of treatment; and (f) any

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

mediations prescribed.
Interrogatory 10: This interrogatory asks for information about health care providers

12

plaintiff has seen for any condition he claims to have suffered because of an act or omission by

13

defendant or its employees. Although plaintiff says that he has authorized the release of his

14

medical records, he must do his best to identify any physicians or other health care providers

15

called for in this interrogatory, including (a) the provider’s full name, current business address,

16

and telephone number; (b) the reason for plaintiff’s visits; (c) the diagnosis, prognosis, and course

17

of treatment provided; (d) the date(s) of plaintiff’s visits; (e) the duration of the course of

18

treatment; and (f) any mediations prescribed.

19

Interrogatory 11: Plaintiff’s response seems to state that he does not currently have a

20

working email address. However, this interrogatory asks him to identify any email accounts he (or

21

anyone acting on his behalf) has used to communicate about his employment with defendant or his

22

complaint’s allegations. Plaintiff must supplement his response to provide the requested

23

information.

24

Interrogatory 12: Plaintiff’s response seems to indicate that he does not socialize because

25

of his claimed disability. However, this interrogatory asks him to identify any social media

26

accounts he (or anyone acting on his behalf) has used to communicate about his employment with

27

defendant or his complaint’s allegations. Plaintiff must supplement his response to provide the

28

requested information.
3

Interrogatory 13: This interrogatory asks for the amount of damages plaintiff claims.

1
2

Although plaintiff’s September 14 supplemental response appears to provide more information

3

about the bases for his claimed damages, he must supplement this interrogatory to provide

4

defendant with his best estimate as to the amount of damages he claims.
For each interrogatory that plaintiff has been ordered to provide a further response,

5
6

plaintiff must provide his further responses to defendant no later than October 31, 2017.

7

Again, to the extent he has not already done so, plaintiff is strongly encouraged to contact

8

the Federal Pro Se Program for assistance. The Pro Se Program is located on the Second Floor

9

of the Federal Courthouse in San Jose. Help is provided by appointment and on a drop-in basis;
however, Fridays are by appointment only. Appointments may be made by: (1) signing up in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

person at the Program’s office (Room 2070) at the San Jose Federal Courthouse; (2) signing up in

12

person at The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Jose, CA; or

13

(3) calling 408-297-1480. Additionally, if he has not already done so, plaintiff is also directed to

14

obtain a copy of the court’s Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, available on the court’s website

15

(http://cand.uscourts.gov) or from the Clerk’s Office.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS

16

At the motion hearing, plaintiff represented to the court that he has given defendant a copy

17
18

of all documents he has that are responsive to the document requests, and the court accepted that

19

representation. Nevertheless, plaintiff is reminded that he has an ongoing obligation to

20

supplement his document production to the extent he continues to receive any new documents that

21

should be produced to defendant in response to defendant’s document requests. Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

26(e).

23
24

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
As discussed at the motion hearing, plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to these requests

25

resulted in the automatic admission of the subject matter of each request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).

26

Plaintiff did not formally move for leave to withdraw the automatic admissions. Nevertheless, the

27

court, in its discretion, deems the automatic admissions withdrawn and accepts plaintiff’s

28
4

1

supplemental September 14 responses1 because it appears that plaintiff was unaware that the

2

consequence of his failure to timely respond was automatic admission. No further response to

3

these requests is required.
AMENDED CASE SCHEDULE

4

In view of the foregoing, and as discussed at the motion hearing, the court grants

5
6

defendant’s request for a brief extension of current case management deadlines as follows:
Fact discovery cutoff:

November 20, 2017

8

Last day for hearing on dispositive motions:

January 16, 2018, 10:00 a.m.

9

Designation of experts with reports:

February 28, 2018

10

Designation of rebuttal experts with reports

March 14, 2018

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Expert discovery cutoff:

April 6, 2018

12

Final Pretrial Conference:

May 1, 2018, 1:30 p.m.

13

Additionally, as discussed at the motion hearing, the November 14, 2017 hearing on

14

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion is vacated. The court will re-set the hearing on plaintiff’s

15

summary judgment motion to coincide with the hearing on defendant’s anticipated motion for

16

summary judgment.
SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: October 11, 2017

19
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

At the motion hearing, plaintiff confirmed that his “NO” response to each request for admission
was meant to be a denial of the matters in each request.
5