Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02027/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02027-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GYPSIE JONES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2027 FCD EFB

vs.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., Inc. dba ORDER

HOME DEPOT #6682, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

This matter was before the undersigned on August 22, 2007, for hearing on plaintiff’s

motion to compel defendants’ supplemental responses to discovery. Mark W. Emmett appeared

as plaintiff’s counsel and Marc Koenigsberg appeared as defense counsel. Having considered all

submitted papers, and having heard oral argument, the court indicated its intention at the hearing

to grant plaintiff’s motion, but delayed issuing an order pending submission by plaintiff’s

counsel of a verified bill of costs incurred in bringing the motion.

On August 24, 2007, plaintiff’s counsel submitted declarations in support of the request

for an award of fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Defendant filed an opposition to

plaintiff’s request, to which plaintiff’s counsel filed a reply. Having considered all submitted

papers, the court hereby grants plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant’s supplemental responses

to interrogatories and request for productions, and awards costs and fees, as detailed below. 

Case 2:06-cv-02027-FCD-EFB Document 24 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

I. MOTION TO COMPEL

This case is proceeding on the complaint filed by plaintiff on September 11, 2006. 

Plaintiff, a disabled person, alleges claims against defendants under the Americans with

Disabilities Act and similar state laws. Plaintiff served defendant Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. dba

Home Depot #6682 (“Home Depot”) with interrogatories and requests for production of

documents on January 3, 2007. Home Depot sought and received a three-week extension to

respond. The responses provided by defendants consisted of boilerplate objections and almost

no substantive responses. The parties met and conferred regarding plaintiff’s demand for

supplemental responses, and plaintiff ultimately filed a motion to compel on July 6, 2007. Two

days before the parties’ joint statement was due, Home Depot served plaintiff with supplemental

responses. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251. At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he was

largely satisfied with the substance of the late production, but indicated that Home Depot had

failed to produce a privilege log as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). 

Accordingly, consistent with the court’s comments at the hearing, plaintiff’s motion to

compel is granted to the extent there is any outstanding discovery that defendant has not

produced. Further, the court orders defendant to produce a privilege log, if it has not already

done so, within five days from the date of service of this order. 

II. AWARD OF COSTS

In the motion to compel, plaintiff originally requested an award in the amount of

$1,500.00. At the hearing, the court indicated that it would grant plaintiff’s request for an award

of fees and costs, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), pending a verified, itemized bill of costs

and fees. 

In the bill of costs subsequently submitted to the court, plaintiff’s counsel included his

own declaration, in addition to declarations by another attorney, Adam Sorrells, and a paralegal,

all attesting to time spent and fees incurred in making the motion. Based on those declarations,

plaintiff revised her request for fees to $3,318.75. The paralegal estimated she spent seven hours

Case 2:06-cv-02027-FCD-EFB Document 24 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

of billable time, at $75.00 per hour, in preparing the joint statement. Mr. Sorrells estimated that

he spent three hours trying to resolve the dispute and one hour in preparing his declaration to that

effect. His billing rate was $250.00. Finally, Mr. Emmett submitted a declaration, stating he had

spent a total of 10.25 hours preparing the motion and joint statement, including three hours of

travel time to and from the hearing. Mr. Emmett’s hourly rate is also $250.00. 

Defense counsel objects to plaintiff’s suddenly increased request for an award of costs

and fees. In opposition to that request, defense counsel submitted an exhibit showing a joint

statement prepared by plaintiff’s counsel in another, earlier case that includes a substantial

amount of identical wording and argument to the one prepared for this case. See Defendants’

Objections to Plaintiff’s Request for Fees and Declaration of Marc B. Koenigsberg, in support

thereof. Mr. Koenigsberg also suggests it was improper for plaintiff to keep the matter on the

court’s calendar in light of Home Depot’s production of documents just prior to the hearing. He

also suggests that plaintiff’s counsel should have appeared telephonically rather than traveling to

Sacramento for the hearing. 

The court does not generally allow telephonic appearances, and the rules provide for an

award of fees even where “the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was

filed . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Here, defendant did not produce the requested discovery

until several months after it was due, and only days before the scheduled hearing on the motion. 

Plaintiff’s counsel was entitled to leave the matter on the court’s calendar. 

Although the court finds the hourly rates of plaintiff’s counsel reasonable, the court

reduces the award to the amount of $2,043.75. 

III. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the forgoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant Home Depot’s supplemental responses to

interrogatories and requests for production of documents is granted to the extent there remains

any outstanding discovery. To the extent Home Depot has not yet filed a privilege log to

Case 2:06-cv-02027-FCD-EFB Document 24 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

correspond with its privilege objections, it shall do so within five days from the date of service of

this order; and,

2. Plaintiff is awarded $2,043.75, for fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion to

compel. 

DATED: September 24, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02027-FCD-EFB Document 24 Filed 09/24/07 Page 4 of 4