Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California et al

Filing 196

ORDER denying 193 Plaintiff's Ex Parte MOTION to Compel Discovery. For the reasons provided herein, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 8/27/12. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PAUMA BAND OF LUISENO
MISSION INDIANS OF THE PAUMA
& YUMA RESERVATION,

CASE NO. 09cv1955-CAB (MDD)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
EX PARTE MOTION TO
COMPEL

Plaintiff,

13
vs.

[ECF NO. 193]

14
15

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Background

18
19
20
21
22
23

On May 18, 2012, the district court authorized the parties to engage in limited
discovery for a period of sixty days. (ECF No. 182 at 40). Discovery was limited to
written discovery and no more than three depositions. (Id.). Upon joint motion of the
parties, this Court ruled on the permissible scope of discovery as follows:
1.

Discovery may be obtained, during this period, to facts relating to
whether or not the provisions of the 1999 Compact created a
fiduciary relationship between the parties relating to the
availability and distribution of licenses and, if so, the scope of that
fiduciary relationship; and,

2.

Discovery may be had, during this period, into facts learned by
Plaintiff that bear on when Plaintiff actually knew or should have
known of facts relating to the improper calculation and
distribution of licenses under the 1999 Compact.

24
25
26
27
28

(ECF No. 187).
-1-

1

On August 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion to Compel Pursuant

2

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) or 37(c)(1). (ECF No. 193). Defendants responded on August

3

23, 2012. (ECF No. 195). Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court requiring

4

Defendants to supplement their responses and production of documents arguing

5

generally that the Defendants have not been entirely forthcoming. Plaintiff does not

6

specifically identify any request and response. Nor does Plaintiff explain adequately

7

why it did not avail itself of the joint motion requirements of this Court. See Civil

8

Chambers Rules of Judge Dembin at section V subsection C. In addition to raising

9

procedural errors in Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants assert that the parties entered

10

into an agreement regarding much of the disputed discovery which agreement is not

11

even mentioned by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 195). As provided below, Plaintiff’s motion is

12

DENIED.

13
14

Discussion
Defendants are correct that Plaintiff has not complied with the Civil Chambers

15

Rules of this Court. Plaintiff does not provide adequate justification for proceeding

16

with an ex parte motion. Plaintiff’s rationale, that Defendants’ position was hardened

17

that no further documents would be forthcoming, and that the time provided for

18

limited discovery was expiring is insufficient. The purpose of the joint motion is to

19

provide the Court with everything it needs to resolve the motion at one time.

20

Otherwise, as happened here, the Court must order and await a response from the

21

opposing party. Proceeding ex parte delays a ruling. Had Plaintiff provided

22

Defendants with the minimum of five days to participate in a joint motion, this

23

motion would have been ripe on August 20. Moreover, the joint motion procedure

24

serves to sharpen the issues and the parties’ arguments.

25

Plaintiff also has not identified any specific disputed discovery request and

26

response. Instead, Plaintiff complains of Defendants’ overall approach to discovery in

27

this case. There is no overarching legal issue involved, such as there was regarding

28

the scope of discovery, which would obviate the need to identify specific requests and
-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6

responses. The Chambers Rules provide:
1. The Interrogatory, Request for Admission or Request for Production
in dispute;
2. The verbatim response to the request or question by the responding
party;
3. A statement by the propounding party as to why a further response
should be compelled; and,
4. A precise statement by the responding party as to the basis for all
objections and/or claims of privilege. Counsel would be wise to avoid
boilerplate objections. Such objections are discouraged under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

7
Dembin Civil Chambers Rules at section V, subsection C. These rules allow for the
8
Court to address specific discovery disputes. Plaintiff’s decision to ignore the rules
9
has resulted in the Court having nothing specific to rule upon.
10
The Court also is perplexed by Plaintiff’s decision to avoid discussing the
11
impact of the discovery agreement between the parties. By its terms, the agreement
12
seems to provide much of the relief requested by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 195-1 Exh. A).
13
Specifically, the agreement contemplates that information not disclosed by certain
14
dates cannot be relied upon by either party in connection with motions for summary
15
judgment. Plaintiff, having chosen not to address the agreement at all, presented no
16
argument that the agreement is in some manner deficient as it may pertain to the
17
current dispute.
18
Regarding the general complaints of Plaintiff, there is simply insufficient
19
information provided to decide whether Defendants’ responses are adequate. To the
20
extent that the arguments presented by the parties provide any insight, it does
21
appear to the Court that Plaintiff is seeking substantially more than the limited
22
discovery anticipated by the district court.
23
Conclusion
24
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
DATED: August 27, 2012
27
28

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge
-3-

09cv1955-CAB (MDD)