United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9, 2016, Plaintiff Katrina Menell (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Rialto Unified School
District (“Defendant”) to provide (a)
supplemental responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 3, 4, 7
through 13, 15, 17, and 20; (b) supplemental responses to
Requests for Production Nos. 10 through 18; (c) verified
supplemental responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 through 14;
and (d) a verification for all Interrogatory responses
(“Motion to Compel”). ECF Docket No.
(“dkt.”) 24, Joint Stipulation
(“JS”). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. The hearing
set for June 30, 2016 is hereby VACATED.
October 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging
Defendant “discriminated against her on the basis of
her disability, by failing and refusing to ensure the
accessibility of the public facilities at Rialto High School
(‘High School’), in violation of federal and
state antidiscrimination statutes.” Dkt. 1, Compl. at
February 5, 2016, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests
for Admission, Requests for Production, and Interrogatories.
Dkt. 24-1, Declaration of Isabel Rose Masanque in support of
Motion to Compel (“Masanque Decl.”), ¶ 2.
April 6, 2016, Defendant “served unverified responses,
several of which consisted of only objections.”
Id. at ¶ 3. On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff’s
counsel sent Defendant’s counsel a letter identifying
the deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. Id.
at ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. 3.
1, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s
counsel met and conferred. Id. at ¶ 6.
Defendant’s counsel agreed to consider providing
supplemental responses, but would need additional time.
9, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel. Dkt.
24, JS. As of June 9, 2016, Defendant had not provided any
supplemental responses. Id. at ¶ 7. Neither
party filed supplemental briefing.
Fact Discovery Cut-Off in this action is July 5, 2016 and
trial is set to begin on October 25, 2016. See dkt.
16, Scheduling Order.
amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure effective
December 1, 2015 emphasize that “[t]he parties and the
court have a collective responsibility to consider the
proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving
discovery disputes.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 advisory committee
notes (2015 amendments). Thus, there is “a shared
responsibility on all the parties to consider the factors
bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery
requests, issuing responses and objections, or raising
discovery disputes before the courts.” Salazar v.
McDonald’s Corp., No. 14-CV-02096-RS (MEJ), 2016
WL 736213, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016); Goes
Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., No. 14-CV-05666-LB, 2016
WL 427369, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (citing advisory
committee notes for proposition that parties share a
“collective responsibility” to consider
proportionality and requiring that “[b]oth parties . .
. tailor their efforts to the needs of th[e] case”);
Razo v. Timec Co., Inc., No. 15-CV-03414-MEJ, 2016
WL 1623938, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016) (same). Moreover,
“Rule 1 is amended to emphasize that just as the court
should construe and administer these rules to secure the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,
so the parties share the responsibility to employ the rules
in the same way.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 advisory committee
notes (2015 amendments).
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may
obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs
of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ relative access to relevant information, the
parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of
the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need
not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”
Id. A court “must limit the frequency or
extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i)
the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii)
the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to
obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii)
the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule
26(b)(1).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C).
or boilerplate objections such as ‘overly burdensome
and harassing’ are improper - especially when a party
fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such
objections.” A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v.
Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citations
omitted) (faulting defendant for making “boilerplate
objections to almost every single request for production,
including broad relevancy objections, objections of
‘overly burdensome and harassing, ’
‘assumes facts not in evidence, ’ privacy, and
attorney-client privilege/work product protection”).
party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an
answer, . . . production, or inspection.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete
disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure
to disclose, answer or respond.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4).
pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, a party’s failure to
oppose a motion may be deemed consent to the granting of the
motion. L.R. 7-12.