Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02354/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02354-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 1/22/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARK SHERWOOD, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

WAVECREST CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-02354 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL AND DENYING

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Wavecrest Corporation and its CEO, Dennis Leisz (collectively “Wavecrest”)

move to compel plaintiff Mark Sherwood to produce further documents in support of his claims. By

separate motion filed in conformance with Local Rule 7-8, Wavecrest also seeks sanctions. The

motions have been fully briefed and argument having been heard, the motion to compel is granted

and the motion for sanctions is denied.

 II. BACKGROUND

Sherwood was terminated from his employment with LeCroy Corporation. Sherwood

previously brought an action in Santa Clara Superior Court against Lecroy and Cypress

Semiconductor regarding his termination. During that litigation, a witness testified that Leisz,

Wavecrest’s CEO, had asserted that Sherwood “sued every company he ever worked for.”

Case 5:05-cv-02354-JF Document 67 Filed 01/22/07 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

1

 Nor does Sherwood argue that grounds exist to relieve him from having waived any such

objections by failing to serve timely responses.

2

Sherwood settled his claims against LeCroy and Cypress, but brought this action against

Wavecrest, alleging defamation and claiming that defendants played a role in his termination from

LeCroy.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel

Sherwood served no timely responses to the document demands at issue in these motions. 

Although Sherwood’s opposition suggests that at least some of the requests could be interpreted as

calling for an overly-broad production, he does not attempt to stand on any such objections.1 Rather,

Sherwood’s opposition acknowledges that responsive documents remain to be produced and merely

argues that the production would have been completed had Wavecrest made further efforts to meet

and confer.

The record establishes that Wavecrest’s efforts to meet and confer were more than adequate

under the Local Rules. Wavecrest initiated multiple communications in an attempt to obtain 

complete production. At the hearing, Sherwood asserted that the remaining responsive documents

had been produced only one day prior to the hearing, despite representations in the opposition filed

two weeks earlier that virtually everything had already been produced or would be produced

forthwith. Thus, it is apparent that motion practice, not continued meet and confer efforts, was

required to produce results.

Accordingly, the motion to compel will be granted. If, indeed, no further responsive

documents exist, so be it. If, however, upon review of the most recent production, counsel for

Wavecrest believes the production is still incomplete, counsel for Sherwood shall make every effort

to respond to those concerns and shall ensure that any further responsive documents that may exist

are produced within 20 days of the date of this order.

B. Motion for Sanctions

Although Sherwood does not appear to have an entirely satisfactory explanation for

Case 5:05-cv-02354-JF Document 67 Filed 01/22/07 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 GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 05-02354 JF (RS) 

3

his failure to produce documents in a timely manner, there were at least some questions as to the

extent to which defendants were seeking documents beyond those produced to other parties or in the

prior Superior Court litigation. Additionally, this is not a case where a party was under prior court

order to respond to discovery. Under all the circumstances here, the Court declines to impose

sanctions at this time. Sherwood is cautioned that if he fails to complete fully the production within

20 days of this order, Wavecrest may renew its sanctions motion, and any failure to comply with

future discovery obligations in this action on a timely basis will likewise be sanctionable.

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is granted. The motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice, as

set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02354-JF Document 67 Filed 01/22/07 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 GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

C 05-02354 JF (RS) 

4

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

Robert David Baker attyatlaw@earthlink.net

Sarju A. Naran sarjunaran@paulhastings.com

Bradford K. Newman bradfordnewman@paulhastings.com,

yvettekillingham@paulhastings.com

John Sherman Purcell johnpurcell@quinnemanuel.com,

Shannon S. Sevey shannonsevey@paulhastings.com, yvettekillingham@paulhastings.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: 1/22/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-02354-JF Document 67 Filed 01/22/07 Page 4 of 4