Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01789/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01789-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS C. KELLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, INC.;

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.;

KAISER PERMANENTE GROUP; TOM LONG;

MARIO CASTANEDA; and Does 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-01789 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Motion to Dismiss, Motion for

Sanctions

Plaintiff Thomas C. Kelly filed this action against defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,

Inc. et al. (collectively, “Kaiser”), seeking damages arising out of defendants’ alleged discrimination

against plaintiff based on his age and disability. Now before the court are defendants’ motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be

granted and defendants’ motion for sanctions based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to provide the initial

disclosures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having considered the parties’

arguments and submissions, and for the reasons set forth below, the court enters the following

memorandum and order.

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiff is a procurement analyst, employed by defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.

for the past seventeen years. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 1. Plaintiff claims to suffer from

a number of disabilities, including back pain and vision impairment. Id. As a result of his

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 14
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

disabilities, plaintiff has historically been permitted to perform some of his job responsibilities from

home.

The conflict giving rise to this lawsuit began in April, 2004 when a new supervisor, Tom

Long, was appointed to manage plaintiff’s department. Id. ¶ 13. According to plaintiff, Long

refused to allow plaintiff to continue to work from home and began to harass plaintiff, allegedly in

order to force plaintiff to take early retirement. Id. Long also refused to compensate plaintiff for

any time worked at home, or for time plaintiff spent attending medical appointments. Id. Plaintiff

ceased coming to work at the end of 2004, and defendants ceased paying plaintiff’s salary in January

2005. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff continued to work from home until April 2005, at which time he was told

by Long to stop. Although plaintiff no longer performs work for defendants, he claims that he is still

employed by them. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff applied for and obtained state disability coverage in February

2005 as a result of his inability to work for defendants. Id. ¶ 15. 

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 29, 2005, alleging age and disability discrimination,

retaliation, ERISA violations, and violations of state wage and hour law. The parties’ initial

disclosures under Rule 26(a) were due on August 22, 2005, but plaintiff failed to serve defendants

with the complaint until after that date. The initial case management conference was subsequently

rescheduled three times, eventually taking place on November 28, 2005.

The parties agreed to exchange their Rule 26(a) disclosures by November 3, 2005. On

November 3, defendants served plaintiff with their initial disclosures, including supporting

documents. Plaintiff did not serve any disclosures or documents at that time.

At the November 28, 2005 case management conference, the court pointed out numerous

deficiencies in plaintiff’s original complaint and ordered plaintiff to file a properly drafted complaint

within twenty-one days. The court also ordered plaintiff to provide his initial disclosures on the

same date.

Plaintiff in fact did not file or serve defendants with the First Amended Complaint until

January 5, 2006, seventeen days after the date ordered by the court, and still failed to provide any

initial disclosures. On January 22, 2006, one day before the next scheduled case management

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 14
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

3

conference, plaintiff provided defendants with a very cursory initial disclosure statement, but no

documents. At the case management conference, the court admonished plaintiff a second time and

ordered the parties to meet and confer to establish a date for plaintiff’s initial disclosures. Plaintiff

subsequently agreed to produce documents in support of his claims by February 6, 2006—three days

before the parties’ scheduled mediation. Plaintiff again failed to produce any documents. Instead,

plaintiff brought a disorganized and incomplete set of state disability payment checks to the

February 9 mediation. Plaintiff did not actually supply copies of any documents to defendants until

March 1, 2006.

Defendants now move to dismiss several of the claims in plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint and for sanctions arising from plaintiff’s delay in providing the disclosure required by

Rule 26.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “tests the legal

sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Rule

12(b)(6) focuses on the “sufficiency” of a claim rather than the claim’s substantive merits,

“[o]rdinarily, a court may look only at the face of the complaint to decide a motion to dismiss.” Van

Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). Under Rule 12(b)(6),

“unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which

would entitle her to relief,” a motion to dismiss must be denied. Lewis v. Telephone Employees

Credit Union, 87 F.3d 1537, 1545 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); see also Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957).

II. Discovery Sanctions

Federal courts have the authority to sanction litigants for discovery abuses both under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and pursuant to the court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 14
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

4

judicial process. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45–46 (1991); In re Matter of

Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1187 (9th Cir. 1986). Specifically, where a party fails to comply with a

discovery order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes the court to impose a range of

sanctions, including, inter alia, taking facts as established, precluding evidence, and dismissing the

action or entering default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). Under Rule 37, the standard for

sanctionable misconduct is generally one of objective unreasonableness. Marquis v. Chrysler Corp.,

577 F.2d 624, 642 (9th Cir. 1978). The decision to impose sanctions under Rule 37 lies within the

sound discretion of the district court. Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 510 (9th Cir. 1997).

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants seek to dismiss several of plaintiff’s claims for based on a variety of alleged

deficiencies. The court will consider each claim in turn.

A. Title VII and FEHA

Plaintiff’s third claim for relief alleges age and disability discrimination against all

defendants under Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The

parties agree that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on age or disability. See 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)–(d). To the extent that plaintiff’s third claim depends on Title VII, it is

therefore dismissed with prejudice.

Defendants also point out that an individual cannot be liable for discrimination under FEHA.

Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal. 4th 640, 663 (1998) (“we conclude that individuals who do not themselves

qualify as employers may not be sued under the FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts.”). Plaintiff

conceded this point at oral argument. Accordingly, plaintiff’s discrimination claims under FEHA

against defendants Castaneda and Long are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s FEHA retaliation

claims against the individual defendants, however, may proceed after being clarified based on the

requirements the court sets forth below.

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 4 of 14
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

5

B. California Labor Code

Plaintiff’s fifth claim for relief, which he incorrectly labeled as his fourth claim, alleges

violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 218, 1102.5, and 1194.

Sections 201 and 202 impose so-called “waiting time penalties” on employers that withhold

payment of wages owed to an employee who is discharged or quits. Defendants argue that sections

201 and 202 are inapplicable to plaintiff, who according to his own allegation is still employed by

Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Inc. FAC ¶ 1. Plaintiff responds that he is merely “technically”

employed by defendants, and that he has been constructively discharged as a result of defendants’

refusal to pay his wages. A constructive discharge, however, occurs when “the employer’s conduct

effectively forces an employee to resign.” Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238,

1244–45 (1994). Here, there is no allegation that plaintiff has resigned or been terminated. The

parties’ representations at oral argument are fully consistent with plaintiff’s claim that he is still

employed by defendants; at oral argument plaintiff conceded that he has remained on Kaiser’s

payroll throughout the course of this litigation, and received a paycheck only weeks prior to the

hearing. Plaintiff’s argument that he is only “technically” employed is therefore absurd. Plaintiff’s

claims under sections 201 and 202 are dismissed without prejudice, subject to reinstatement if

plaintiff is actually terminated or quits.

Section 218, titled “Authority of district attorney and wage claimant,” states that “Nothing in

this article shall limit the right of any wage claimant to sue directly or through an assignee for any

wages or penalty due him under this article.” As defendants correctly point out, this language does

not establish a separate cause of action, but rather preserves the right of a wage claimant to sue for

wages due “under this article”—i.e., set forth in other sections which define actionable violations. 

Plaintiff’s claim under section 218 is therefore dismissed with prejudice.

Finally, section 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers—employees who report

violations of law to state or federal governmental agencies. In order to state a claim under section

1102.5, plaintiff must allege that he engaged in protected activity, such as disclosing a violation of

law to a governmental agency. See Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(b) (“An employer may not retaliate

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 5 of 14
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

6

against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency.”); Love

v. Motion Indus., Inc., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1134 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (Jenkins, J.) (plaintiff must

disclose to a government or law enforcement evidence of activity which violates a federal or state

law). Plaintiff concedes that the current complaint does not mention any government or law

enforcement agency, but argues that he “could insert the date the EEOC complaint was filed in the

FAC to show reporting to a law enforcement agency under Labor Code Section 1102.5.” Brief in

Opposition at 8. The fact that plaintiff “could” do so is irrelevant to defendants’ motion to dismiss,

which is based on the current complaint.

The court also notes that plaintiff’s whistleblower claim, to the extent it is based on reporting

his supervisor’s discrimination to the EEOC, is nearly indistinguishable from his FEHA

discrimination and retaliation claims. If plaintiff wishes to pursue a whistleblower claim that is

distinct from his FEHA claims, he must articulate a separate factual basis. Plaintiff’s current claim,

which appears to be based solely on his complaint to the EEOC, is dismissed with prejudice. This

dismissal does not preclude plaintiff from bringing a distinct whistleblower claim if he is able to do

so.

C. ERISA

Plaintiff’s sixth claim for relief, which he incorrectly labeled as his fifth claim, is purportedly

brought under ERISA. The claim as drafted is totally incoherent, and does not cite any meaningful

portion of the ERISA statute. The only statute cited by plaintiff—29 U.S.C. § 11329(a)(3)(B) [sic:

1132(a)(3)(B)]—provides only that “A civil action may be brought . . . by a participant, beneficiary,

or fiduciary . . . to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to

enforce any provisions of this subchapter or the terms of the plan.” Plaintiff does not identify,

however, which provision of ERISA has been violated. Nor has plaintiff alleged facts which might

support a valid ERISA claim; the current complaint contains no allegation that plaintiff applied for

benefits and was denied, or that he requested information from the plan administrator and was

denied.

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 6 of 14
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

7

The court already pointed out precisely these deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint at the

November 28, 2005 case management conference. Plaintiff’s amendment does nothing to correct

them. The court will grant plaintiff one further opportunity to state a viable ERISA claim, but

cautions plaintiff that further disregard of the court’s orders will result in an appropriate sanction.

As a final note, defendants argue that plaintiff has not named the plan administrator in his

current complaint, and that the plan administrator is the proper defendant in an ERISA claim. To the

extent that the identity of the proper defendant is unclear, defendants are ordered to provide

clarification to plaintiff before plaintiff files his second amended complaint. Plaintiff’s current

ERISA claim is dismissed without prejudice.

D. Constructive Discharge

Plaintiff’s seventh claim for relief, which he incorrectly labeled as his sixth claim, alleges

that he has been constructively discharged. As discussed above, plaintiff also alleges that he is still

employed by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. Thus, he cannot state a claim for constructive discharge. 

See Turner, 7 Cal. 4th at 1244–45. Plaintiff may only state a claim for constructive discharge if he

has resigned or been terminated. Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action is therefore dismissed.

E. Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiff’s “Seventh” and “Eighth” causes of action (actually, claims eight and nine) allege

that defendants intentionally or negligently caused plaintiff emotional distress by making comments

about his age and disability and by refusing to make reasonable accommodations. Defendants argue

that claims such as those raised by plaintiff are barred by the exclusivity provision of California’s

Workers’ Compensation law, California Labor Code section 3600(a). Defendants cite Cole v. Fair

Oaks Fire Protection Dist., 43 Cal. 3d 148, 160 (1987), in support of their argument:

[W]hen the misconduct attributed to the employer is actions which are a normal part

of the employment relationship, such as demotions, promotions, criticism of work

practices, and frictions in negotiations as to grievances, an employee suffering

emotional distress causing disability may not avoid the exclusive remedy provisions

of the Labor Code by characterizing the employer’s decisions as manifestly unfair,

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 7 of 14
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

8

outrageous, harrassment, or intended to cause emotional disturbance resulting in

disability.

Plaintiff argues that claims of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress which are

rooted in discrimination are not barred, citing Fretland v. County of Humboldt, 69 Cal. App. 4th

1478 (1999) and Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396 (9th Cir. 1994).

Maynard indeed holds, broadly, that tort claims rooted in violations of public policy are not

barred by California’s Workers’ Compensation law. “Personal injury claims that implicate

fundamental public policy considerations are not preempted by the Workers’ Compensation Act.” 

Id. at 1405 (citing Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal. 4th 1083, 1101 (1992), overruled on other grounds by

Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal. 4th 66 (1998)). The issue in Gantt was narrower than the Ninth

Circuit suggests: whether an employee wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy may

pursue tort claims against the employer. Gantt, 1 Cal. 4th at 1101 (“we hold that the Workers’

Compensation Act does not preempt plaintiff’s Tameny action for tortious discharge in

contravention of fundamental public policy.”). The Gantt court did, however, distinguish Cole, the

case cited by defendants: “Nevertheless, we also recognized in Cole that the scope of the Workers’

Compensation Act is not universal. . . . The exclusive remedy provisions are not applicable under

certain circumstances, sometimes variously identified as ‘conduct where the employer or insurer

stepped out of their proper roles.’” Id. at 1100 (internal citation and quotations omitted). The Gantt

court found that acts based on “an animus that violates the fundamental policy of this state” fall

outside of normal employer-employee relations, and therefore are not covered by workers’

compensation. Id. It is possible to read this language, as the Ninth Circuit already has, as permitting

tort recovery for conduct which is based on discrimination.

Defendants argue, in the alternative, that plaintiff’s tort claims should be dismissed to the

extent they are based on conduct other than discrimination. It is not the court’s role on a motion to

dismiss, however, to decide what evidence plaintiff may present in order to establish his claims. 

Defendants’ argument should be reserved for summary judgment or a motion in limine.

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 8 of 14
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

9

Finally, the court notes that plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is

not cognizable as a separate tort under California law. See, e.g., Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber

Co., 6 Cal. 4th 965, 984 (1993) (“there is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional

distress.”); Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1064, 1072 (1992) (“We have repeatedly

recognized the negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but the tort of

negligence.”) (internal quotation omitted); Lawson v. Management Activities, Inc., 69 Cal. App. 4th

652, 656 (1999) (“NIED is simply a species of negligence.”). In order to recover emotional distress

damages arising out of defendants’ negligence, plaintiff must establish the traditional elements of a

tort: duty, breach of duty, causation and damages. See id. at 657. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to

redraft his claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a properly pleaded negligence

claim.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s intentional and negligent infliction of emotional

distress claims with prejudice is therefore denied. Plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of

emotional distress is dismissed without prejudice, subject to amendment as specified above.

F. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing fails because, under California law, the covenant arises only where there is a contract

between the parties, and does not expand the rights of the parties under that contract. See Guz v.

Bechtel Nat., Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 322 (2000) (“The covenant of good faith and fair dealing,

implied by law in every contract, exists merely to prevent one contracting party from unfairly

frustrating the other party’s right to receive the benefits of the agreement actually made.”). 

According to defendants, plaintiff has not alleged the existence of a contract between the parties, or

that defendants have breached it.

Plaintiff responds that there need not be a contract in order to assert a claim for breach of the

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, citing Comeaux v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 915

F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1990). Comeaux considered whether an at-will employee could sue for unlawful

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 9 of 14
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

10

discharge based on a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court held that the

plaintiff could not “transform a terminable-at-will employment contract into a terminable-only-forcause employment contract by construing a discharge without cause as a breach of the covenant,”

but noted that “[t]he implied covenant, however, remains available as a cause of action, even in the

face of an at-will employment contract, where a plaintiff alleges that conduct other than his

discharge violated the covenant.” Id. at 1272. In other words, although an at-will employee does

not have a contractual right to continued employment, there may be other contractual rights which, if

violated, would support a claim under the covenant. Nothing about this holding conflicts with

defendants’ position. In any case, Comeaux was decided ten years before Guz, which disapproved

of the notion that the covenant confers extra-contractual rights on an employee: “the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposes no independent limits on an employer’s prerogative

to dismiss employees.” Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 351; see id. at 353 (“there is no tort of ‘bad faith breach’

of an employment contract.”).

While plaintiff may be able to state a claim for breach of the covenant based on actions other

than termination, the First Amended Complaint contains no allegations about the existence or scope

of any contract between the parties. Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and

fair dealing is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

G. More Definite Statement

Defendants also move, in the alternative, for a more definite statement as to each of

plaintiff’s claims. As the court has granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to most of

plaintiff’s claims, defendants’ request is largely moot.

In addition to the specific deficiencies already discussed, however, defendants claim that

certain of plaintiff’s claims are compound and difficult to decipher. For example, plaintiff’s second

claim alleges violations of the Americans’ with Disabilities Act, FEHA, the Family Medical Leave

Act, and the California Family Rights Act. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) requires that

“[e]ach claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence and each defense other than denials

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 10 of 14
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

11

. . . be stated in a separate count or defense whenever a separation facilitates the clear presentation of

the matters set forth.” The court finds that separation of plaintiff’s claims would lend clarity to the

complaint. When plaintiff files his amended complaint, he should take care to spell out each claim

individually, and should ensure that the facts alleged meet the requirements of each claim

individually.

II. Motion for Sanctions

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 sets forth broad categories of information and

documentation which the parties are required to exchange, even in the absence of a specific

discovery request. Rule 26(a), in particular, requires that a party seeking damages provide

a computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making

available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other

evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such

computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries

suffered.

Plaintiff does not dispute that he repeatedly failed to produce documents supporting his claim for

damages until March 1, 2006, in violation of his agreement with opposing counsel and this court’s

order of November 28, 2005. Plaintiff failed to produce any disclosure at all until January 22,

2006—over one month later than ordered by this court. As explored at oral argument, plaintiff’s

January 22 disclosure is woefully inadequate, comprising a list of witnesses with no indication as to

each witness’s knowledge or expected areas of testimony.

Also at oral argument, however, it became clear that defendants likewise produced certain

important documents at the time of the mediation. In addition, defendants, as plaintiff’s employer,

already have some documentation in their possession which indicates the likely magnitude of

plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages. The court therefore declines to impose sanctions at this

time.

Plaintiff’s failure to produce his required disclosures in a timely fashion is certainly

troubling. Counsel for plaintiff has known of the need to collect and produce documents supporting

plaintiff’s damages claim since at least April 2005—a full ten months before the documents were

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 11 of 14
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

12

actually produced. The failure of plaintiff’s counsel to do so has caused defendants to spend

needless time issuing requests for the documents, wasted the resources of this court and seriously

undermined the productivity of the February 9, 2006 mediation. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to

complete his required initial disclosures, including an updated witness list with meaningful

information about each witness’s knowledge, within two weeks of the hearing for this motion. If

plaintiff fails to complete his required disclosure, the court will seriously consider imposing

monetary sanctions against plaintiff’s attorney.

III. Other Matters

Two other matters arose at oral argument which should be memorialized or clarified in this

order. First, defendants agreed to file with the court within two weeks of the hearing copies of

defendants’ payroll records for plaintiff, accompanied by an authenticating declaration and an

explanation of how to read the records. The court ordered defendants to do so in the minute order

for the hearing, and confirms that order here.

Second, defendants requested clarification as to the date by which the corporate defendants

will be required to answer plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within

30 days of the filing of plaintiff’s second amended complaint.

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 12 of 14
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

13

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART defendants’ motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, as set forth in more detail above. The court DENIES

defendants’ motion for sanctions. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint conforming with the

court’s ruling within 30 days of this order. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within 30

days of the filing of the amended complaint. Defendants also shall file with the court copies of

plaintiff’s payroll records no later than April 24, 2006. Plaintiff shall serve defendants with an

amended witness list, including summaries of the witnesses’ knowledge and expected testimony, no

later than April 24, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2006 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 13 of 14
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

14

1. Unless otherwise specified, background facts are taken from plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint, and are assumed to be true for purposes of this motion only. Facts pertaining to

discovery exchanged by the parties are taken from the declarations accompanying these motions.

ENDNOTES

Case 3:05-cv-01789-MHP Document 59 Filed 04/19/06 Page 14 of 14