Garcia-Garcia et al v. Costco Wholsale Corporation

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 40 INFORMATIVE Motion regarding (24 hrs to oppose) filed by Costco Wholsale Corporation, 43 INFORMATIVE Motion filed by Costco Wholsale Corporation, 35 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Owed by Costco and Second Request for Discovery Sanctions filed by Karelis Echevarria-Cruz, Conjugal Partnership Garcia-Echevarria, Leonal Anthony Garcia-Garcia, 45 MOTION to Compel Deposition Testimony of Plaintiff filed by Costco Wholsale Co rporation, 39 Third MOTION for Sanctions Under Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure as to Costco Wholsale Corporation filed by Karelis Echevarria-Cruz, Conjugal Partnership Garcia-Echevarria, Leonal Anthony Garcia-Garcia, 44 MOTION for Discovery Sanctions as to Costco Wholsale Corporation and RESPONSE to Motion Re: 43 INFORMATIVE filed by Karelis Echevarria-Cruz, Conjugal Partnership Garcia-Echevarria, Leonal Anthony Garcia-Garcia. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Silvia Carreno-Coll on 5/26/2015.(NBB)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

LEONAL A. GARCÍA-GARCÍA,
ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIV. NO.: 14-1727(SCC)

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.,
ET AL.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending are numerous discovery-related motions filed by
Plaintiffs, along with a motion by Costco seeking to compel
Plaintiffs to conduct certain depositions. Below, I briefly
consider the motions individually.
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Renew Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel (Docket No. 35)
On April 21 and in response to Plaintiffs’ first motion to
compel, the Court held a brief telephone conference and
ordered Costco to respond to written discovery within ten

GARCIA-GARCIA v. COSTCO

Page 2

days. Docket No. 34. Production was thus due on May 1, 2015,
and on that day Costco did respond to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and requests for production. However, the production was
incomplete insofar as it did not include a CD containing
substantial electronic discovery. That CD was instead sent to
Plaintiffs on May 4, 2015, the same day Plaintiffs filed this
motion.
Plaintiffs request severe sanctions, asking that Costco be
barred from supporting numerous affirmative defenses. To be
sure, Costco was late in responding to Plaintiffs’ requests: if it
could not produce the documents by May 1, 2015, it needed
either Plaintiffs’ consent or this Court’s permission, but it
obtained neither. However, the CD was sent just days later,
and so Plaintiffs cannot seriously be thought to have suffered
any prejudice from the minimally late production. Sanctions
are thus appropriate, but minimal ones: Costco shall pay
Plaintiffs $250 as attorneys’ fees for the drafting of the motion
to compel.
Plaintiffs also request that Costco’s objections to various
interrogatories be deemed waived, as Costco’s objections were
untimely. Plaintiffs are wrong, however, in calling the
objections—which were filed within the Court’s extended

GARCIA-GARCIA v. COSTCO

Page 3

deadline—untimely. The objections are therefore valid, and if
Plaintiffs dispute their validity they must first meet and confer
with Costco before bringing the matter to the Court’s attention
again. The motion is thus GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.
2. Plaintiffs’ Third Motion Requesting Sanctions
(Docket No. 39)
In this motion, Plaintiffs complain that the CD containing
the electronic production was encrypted and not in a format of
their liking. Quite simply, Plaintiffs have no excuse for seeking
the Court’s intercession on this point without first seeking to
resolve it with Defendants. Indeed, the issue was in fact
resolved, and the production was re-submitted in an unecrypted format.
As to Plaintiffs’ complaints about organization of the
documents, the production was accompanied by an index,
which was then updated to include information after Plaintiffs
made their initial complaint. See Docket No. 43. The initial
production seems to have been suitable, and the updated index
(about which Plaintiffs also gripe) certainly cannot be said to
have prejudiced Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED and
Costco’s informative motoin, Docket No. 43, is NOTED.

GARCIA-GARCIA v. COSTCO

Page 4

3. Costco’s Motion Requesting Plaintiff be Compelled ot
Appear at His Deposition (Docket No. 45)
Costco apparently scheduled a deposition of Plaintiff for
tomorrow, May 27, 2015, as well as two additional fact depositions for the following day. Citing Costco’s “incomplete”
production, Plaintiffs maintain that they cannot properly
defend the depositions at this time. In fact, Costco has substantially complied with its discover obligations. All that seems to
outstanding are the contested objections to certain interrogatories, and the Court is unwilling to put discovery on hold while
those are sorted out. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for a protective
order, Docket No. 46, is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ counsel is
ORDERED to be available for the depositions scheduled for
May 28, 2015. Given the lateness of this Order, however,
Plaintiff’s deposition can be rescheduled, though it must be
done promptly. With that, Costco’s motion is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
*

*

*

Discovery in this case has become far too contentious too
quickly, and Plaintiffs in particular seem overeager in accusing
their opponents of malfeasance. Going forward, the parties
must operate in good faith—and they must assume that their

GARCIA-GARCIA v. COSTCO

Page 5

opponents are doing likewise. Perceived violations of Rules or
orders shall not be brought to the Court as a first resort;
instead, all disputes regarding discovery or related matters
must be conferred upon in good faith, either in person or by
phone.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 26th day of May, 2015.
S/ SILVIA CARREÑO-COLL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE