United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
(In Chambers) Order (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for
Production [Dkt. 17]; (2) Granting in Part and Denying in
Part Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to
Interrogatories [Dkt. 19]; and (3) Vacating the Hearings set
for May 10, 2018
April 19, 2018, Defendant Aerotek, Inc.
(“Defendant”) filed Motions to Compel Plaintiff
Myrna Gomez Cabrales (“Plaintiff”) to provide
further responses to (1) Requests for Production, Set One,
Nos. 15, 16, 26, 29, and 30; and (2) Interrogatories, Set
One, Nos. 10, 12, 14, 16, and 21. ECF Docket Nos.
(“Dkts.”) 17, 19. Plaintiff also requests an
award of $4, 900.50 as reasonable attorney's fees
incurred in bringing each Motion to Compel. Id.
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES
IN PART Defendant's Motions to Compel and DENIES
Defendant's request for reasonable attorney's fees
incurred in bringing both Motions to Compel. In addition, the
Court hereby VACATES the hearings set for May 10, 2018.
case arises out of the alleged wrongful termination of
Plaintiff on or about April 7, 2017. Dkt. 1-1, ¶ 15. On
June 20, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a
Complaint against Defendant in San Bernardino Superior Court
setting forth the following causes of action: (1) Disability
Discrimination; (2) Failure to Engage in the Interactive
Process; (3) Failure to Accommodate a Disability; (4)
Retaliation for Exercising Rights to Take Protected Leave in
Violation of California Family Rights Act/FEHA; (5)
Retaliation under the FEHA; (6) Failure to Prevent Disability
Discrimination; and (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy. Dkt. 1-1.
28, 2017, Defendant filed an Answer. Dkt. 1-2. On July 31,
2017, Defendant removed the action to this Court. Dkt. 1.
October 2, 2017, Defendant served Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff. Dkt. 17-1, Declaration of
Michael S. Kun in support of Defendant's Motion to Compel
Production (“Kun RFP Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. A. On
October 2, 2017, Defendant also served Interrogatories, Set
One, on Plaintiff. Dkt. 19-1, Declaration of Michael S. Kun
in support of Defendant's Motion to Compel
Interrogatories (“Kun ROG Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex.
October 13, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting
a discovery cut-off of June 11, 2018, a dispositive motion
hearing cut-off of August 20, 2018, and a jury trial for
October 16, 2018. Dkt. 11.
November 13, 2017, Plaintiff served responses to
Defendant's Requests for Production, Set One. Kun RFP
Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B. On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff also
served responses to Defendant's Interrogatories, Set One.
Kun ROG Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B.
December 6, 2017, Defendant's counsel sent
Plaintiff's counsel a letter setting forth the
deficiencies in Plaintiff's responses to the Requests for
Production and Interrogatories. Kun RFP Decl., ¶ 4; Kun
ROG Decl., ¶ 4.
December 15, 2017, counsel for both parties met and conferred
and discussed the Requests for Production and Interrogatories
that are the subject of the instant Motions. Kun RFP Decl.,
¶¶ 5-7; Kun ROG Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.
January 26, 2018, Plaintiff served supplemental responses to
the Requests for Production. Kun RFP Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. E.
On January 26, 2018, Plaintiff served supplemental responses
to the Interrogatories. Id., ¶ 9, Ex. F.
March 30, 2018, Defendant served Defendant's portion of
the Joint Stipulations in support of the instant Motions on
Plaintiff. Dkt. 19-5, Declaration of Michael Velarde in
support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Compel
Interrogatories (“Velarde ROG Decl.”) ¶ 3.
April 7, 2018, Plaintiff served further supplemental
responses to Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 10, 11, 14, and
16. Id., ¶ 4, Ex. 1. That same day, Plaintiff
also served additional responsive documents. Dkt. 17-5,
Declaration of Michael Velarde in support of Plaintiff's
Opposition to Motion to Compel Production (“Velarde RFP
Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. 1.
April 19, 2018, Defendant filed the instant Motions to Compel
with Joint Stipulations pursuant to Local Rule 37-2. Dkts.
17, 18, 19, 20. On April 26, 2018, Defendants filed
Supplemental Briefs in support of their Motions to Compel.
Dkts. 21, 22. The Motions thus stand submitted.
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). Salazar v. McDonald's
Corp., No. 14-CV-02096-RS (MEJ), 2016 WL 736213, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016) (noting 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”). 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 & Partners, Inc. v.
Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (faulting
defendant for making “boilerplate objections to almost
every single request for production, including broad
relevancy objections, objections of ‘overly burdensome