Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04738/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04738-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

*E-FILED 10/29/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAULO ARANDA, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

NTH TELECOM, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 06-04738 JF (RS)

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR

SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants move to impose terminating or evidentiary sanctions and separately move for

monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel for alleged failures to comply with discovery

obligations. The Court finds these motions suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant

to Civil Local Rule 7-1 (b). For the reasons set forth below, sanctions will be granted in the amount

of $1000. 

II. BACKGROUND

On August 15, 2007, the Court entered an order granting two motions to compel and a

motion for protective order brought by defendants. That order also denied defendants’ requests for

sanctions made in connection with the motions to compel, on grounds that Civil Local Rule 7-8

requires all requests for sanctions to be made by separately-noticed motion. Defendants now seek

sanctions as follows:

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 66 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

1. The sum of $2,835, representing the fees and expenses incurred in bringing the prior

motion to compel responses to interrogatories.

2. The sum of $6974, representing the fees and expenses incurred in bringing the prior

motion to compel a deposition, including the costs incurred in traveling to San Jose for the

deposition, which plaintiff unilaterally cancelled.

3. The sum of $3385, representing the fees and expenses incurred in bringing these motions,

based on the fact that plaintiff failed to serve timely interrogatory responses in compliance with the

Court’s August 15, 2007 order.

Defendants filed their motion for monetary sanctions on September 26, 2007, setting it for

hearing on October 31, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, plaintiff’s opposition was due on

October 10th; it was not filed, however, until October 11th. By the same rule, defendants’ reply was

due on October 17th. Even giving defendants the benefit of an extra day in light of plaintiff’s late

opposition, defendant’s reply brief, filed on October 25th, was a full week late. The circumstances

of the filing of the motion for terminating or evidentiary sanctions is discussed below.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Monetary Sanctions

The Court declines to impose sanctions based on plaintiff’s conduct prior to the August 15,

2007 order. Although, as reflected in that order, the Court concluded that the positions taken by

plaintiff in resisting the discovery were not sustainable, the circumstances do not rise to a level that

warrants imposing sanctions. 

Plaintiffs’ failure to provide timely interrogatory responses in compliance with the Court’s

order, however, presents a different situation. Plaintiff asserts that sanctions are not warranted

because defendants were promised that the responses were forthcoming. Plaintiff does not,

however, deny that the responses were untimely and that they were not served until after defendants

filed their sanctions motions. Under these circumstances, imposition of sanctions in the sum of

$1000 is appropriate.

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 66 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

C 06-04738 JF (RS)

3

B. Terminating or Evidentiary Sanctions

Defendants’ motion for terminating or evidentiary sanctions was manually filed during a

time period in which the Court’s electronic filing system was not functioning. To date, the Clerk’s

office has yet to enter the motion on the docket, and it is unclear whether plaintiff understood the

motion to be pending. Plaintiff filed no opposition and defendants filed no reply. In any event, the

basis of the request to impose terminating or evidentiary sanctions was plaintiff’s failure to respond

to the interrogatories. As those responses have now been provided, albeit belatedly, the motion will

be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

 Defendants’ motion for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $1000. The motions

are otherwise denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 66 Filed 10/29/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

C 06-04738 JF (RS)

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Grant Andrew Carlson gcarlson@go4law.com, sgoetz@go4law.com

Adam Wang aqwang@dalbonandwang.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 10/29/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-04738-JW Document 66 Filed 10/29/07 Page 4 of 4