Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Justin Dobrowski, et al v. Sacramento County

February 7, 2013

JUSTIN DOBROWSKI, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Presently before the court is defendants' motion to compel (Dkt. No. 47) plaintiffs to provide initial disclosures, to completely respond to form interrogatories and requests for production of documents ("RFPs") without objections, and to pay defense counsel's fees associated with filing the motion to compel.*fn1

This matter came on for hearing on February 7, 2013. Attorney Ellen C. Dove appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Attorney Kelley S. Kern appeared on behalf of defendants. The undersigned has fully considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and appropriate portions of the record. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned grants defendants' motion in full.

I. BACKGROUND

The relevant events precipitating this discovery dispute occurred as follows. On May 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed their original pleading. (Dkt. No. 1.) On March 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 34.) On April 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 37.)

On August 23, 2012, defendants served their initial disclosures. (Declaration of Kelley Kern ("Kern Decl."), Dkt. No. 47-2 ¶ 3.) On October 12, 2012, defendants propounded Interrogatories and Requests for Production, with responses due November 16, 2012. (Kern Decl. ¶ 5; Exhs. A-B to Kern Decl.) Plaintiffs did not provide responses by that deadline.

On November 19, 2012, defendants' counsel emailed plaintiffs' counsel to discuss the lack of responses. After a telephone call from plaintiffs' counsel, defendants' counsel gave plaintiffs' counsel an extension to December 7, 2012. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs failed to provide responses by the extended deadline. (Id. ¶ 7.)

On December 12, 2012, defendants' counsel emailed plaintiffs' counsel to state that defendants would file a motion to compel if responses and disclosures were not received by December 20, 2012. (Id. ¶ 8.) On December 13, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel responded that she had begun receiving responses from her clients and would forward them to defendants as soon as they were completed. (Id.) However, defendants received no responses.

On January 3, 2013, defendants' counsel wrote to plaintiffs' counsel inquiring about the status of the responses. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs' counsel did not respond. (Id. ¶ 11.)

On January 24, 2013, defendants filed the pending motion to compel. Plaintiffs have not served initial disclosures or discovery responses as of that filing date. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Prior to the hearing on February 7, 2013, plaintiffs did not file any opposition or other response to defendants' pending motion. During the hearing on the matter, plaintiffs' counsel confirmed that she did not attempt to file any response to defendants' motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants request an order compelling plaintiffs to: (1) supply initial disclosures;

(2) respond to the interrogatories and RFPs, without objections, and (3) pay $1,188 in costs/fees associated with defendants having to file the motion to compel. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.