United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MARCH 23, 2017 LETTER
RE: DKT. NO. 198
A. WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March 8, 2017, the Court ordered the parties to file letters
"discussing all outstanding discovery disputes that the
parties desire the Court to resolve" by March 14, 2017.
(Dkt. No. 189 at 1.) Pursuant to this order, Defendants filed
a discovery letter on March 14, 2017. (Dkt. No. 190.)
Plaintiff did not file a letter. On March 15, 2017, the Court
issued an order addressing several of Defendants'
discovery disputes, and ordering that the parties meet and
confer in-person at the Oakland Courthouse on March 21, 2017.
On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a letter raising other
discovery issues, and asking to be relieved from the
Court's in-person meet and confer requirement. (Dkt. No.
194.) That same day, the Court denied Plaintiff's request
for relief from the in-person meet and confer requirement.
(Dkt. No. 195.)
March 21, 2017, the parties conducted an all-day, in-person
meet and confer at the Oakland Courthouse, with the
assistance of the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 196.) In light of
this meet and confer and the agreements made by the parties,
the Court terminated Defendants' March 14, 2017 letter
and Plaintiff's March 20, 2017 letter as moot. (Dkt. No.
March 23, 2017, Defendants filed a letter requesting that the
Court rule on several issues raised in the March 14, 2017
letter, on the grounds that they had not "contemplated,
and did not meet and confer on, all of the discovery issues
submitted to [the Court] by [Defendants] on March 14, 2017,
" instead meeting "only on the discovery issues
with pending deadlines, as ordered." (Dkt. No. 198 at
initial matter, the Court notes that during the March 21,
2017 meet and confer, the undersigned expressed to the
parties that they should try to resolve all disputes between
the parties. During the meet and confer, Defendants did in
fact raise several of the disputes listed in the March 14,
2017 letter, including production of documents related to
damages and the audio recording. (See Dkt. Nos. 194
at 5-7; 196.) Plaintiff agreed to produce these documents by
March 31, 2017. (Dkt. No. 196.) In light of Plaintiff's
stated intent to produce the documents sought, the Court
DENIES Defendants' request to impose evidentiary
sanctions at this time.
Defendants' third, fourth, and fifth requests for
production, Defendants state that Plaintiff has failed to
produce formal written objections and responses to
Defendants' third and fourth requests for production, and
failed to produce any documents responsive to Defendants'
fifth request for production. (Dkt. No. 190 at 7.) Defendants
further state that Plaintiff has not provided a timely
response to Defendants' third set of interrogatories.
Court previously found that Plaintiff's failure to
provide timely objections constituted a waiver of objections.
(See Dkt. No. 159 at 2-3 (finding that Plaintiff
waived his objections to Requests for Production, Set Three,
based on Plaintiff's "failure to furnish timely
written responses"); Dkt. No. 172 at 2 (same).) Thus, to
the extent Plaintiff failed to provide timely objections, he
has waived his objections and must respond to these requests
for production and interrogatories in full. Accordingly, the
Court ORDERS Plaintiff to produce all responsive documents
and information to Defendants' third, fourth, and fifth
requests for production, and Defendants' third set of
interrogatories, by March 31, 2017. Plaintiff must also
provide all documents related to his job search and
mitigation of damages, as previously ordered by the Court, by
March 31, 2017. (See Dkt. Nos. 110, 159.) Plaintiff
may not object. Failure to do so may result in sanctions
for failure to cooperate in the discovery process, including
monetary or evidentiary sanctions, or a recommendation of
terminating sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37. See Gordon v. Cty. of Alameda, No.
CV-06-2997-SBA, 2007 WL 1750207, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 15,
2007) ("Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides for
sanctions available for failure to make disclosures or
cooperate in discovery. Under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), if a party
fails to obey an order to provide discovery, the court may
dismiss the action or proceeding in whole or in part");
In re Pryor, 543 Fed.Appx. 685, 685 (9th Cir. 2013)
(finding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its
discretion in directing entry of default based on the
party's willful failure to attend a status conference,
cooperate in the discovery process, and timely respond to the
court's order to show cause); Landry v. City &
Cty. of SF, No. 08-3791-SC, 2010 WL 1461592, at *5 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 9, 2010) (dismissing case where the plaintiffs
repeatedly defied court orders).
 The Court will be more likely to
impose sanctions should Plaintiff not produce the requested
documents by March 31, 2017.
 If Plaintiff contends he has timely
objected, Plaintiff must provide a copy of his responses to
these requests for production and interrogatories, which must
be dated so that the Court can ensure that objections were
timely provided. See Fed R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2)
(responses to interrogatories due within 30 days of being
served); Fed.R.Civ.P. ...