Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02034/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02034-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CRAIG BROWNFIELD; et al., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF 

CALIFORNIA, LLC; et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2034 JAM AC 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is defendant’s Motion To Compel discovery from pro se plaintiff 

Sylvie Serrano. ECF No. 29. The matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge 

by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). 

 Serrano has not responded to the motion in any way. The description of the dispute is 

therefore taken from the undisputed facts contained in declarations filed with the court. The 

undersigned has determined that the matter may be submitted on the papers, and decided without 

oral argument. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On April 25, 2016, defendant served document requests and interrogatories on Serrano, 

who was represented by the Mellen Law Firm at the time. Declaration of Brian D. Berry (ECF 

No. 29-2) (“Berry Decl. (29-2)”) ¶ 2; ECF Nos. 29-3 (document requests), 29-4 (interrogatories). 

Serrano’s lawyers tried and failed to get information from Serrano sufficient to respond to the 

Case 2:15-cv-02034-JAM-AC Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 3
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

discovery requests. Declaration of Matthew Mellen (ECF No. 16-1) (“Mellen Decl. (16-1)”) ¶ 4. 

Having failed to obtain this information from their client, Serrano’s counsel concluded that they 

“had no choice but to serve boilerplate objections to Defendant’s discovery requests.” Id.; ECF 

Nos. 29-5 (response to interrogatories), 29-6 (response to document requests). 

 On September 30, 2016, defendant’s counsel, after meeting and conferring with Serrano’s 

counsel, noticed Serrano’s deposition for October 19, 2016. Berry Decl. (29-2) ¶¶ 5-6; ECF 

No. 29-8 (deposition notice). On October 14, 2016, the district judge presiding over this case 

granted the Mellen Law Firm’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Sylvie 

Serrano, and ordered that Serrano would proceed in pro per going forward. ECF No. 27. 

Defendant’s counsel thereupon communicated directly with Serrano, who acknowledged the 

October 19, 2016 deposition date. Berry Decl. (29-2) ¶¶ 8-9. Serrano failed to appear at the 

deposition, and failed to respond to counsel’s subsequent communications about it. Id. ¶¶ 10-14. 

II. MEET AND CONFER & JOINT STATEMENT 

 The court agrees with defendant that this matter is exempt from the Meet and Confer and 

Joint Statement requirements of Local Rule 251. For purposes of Local Rule 251(e)(1), 

plaintiff’s failure to provide enough information for counsel to provide a single substantive 

response to the discovery requests – leading counsel to submit nothing but “boilerplate” 

objections – constitutes a complete failure to provide discovery, as does plaintiff’s unexcused 

failure to appear for the deposition. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 is broad: “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 .....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance “has 

been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to 

other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. 

v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)). 

If relevancy is plain from the face of the request, the party who resists discovery has the burden to 

show that discovery should not be allowed, and carries the “heavy burden of clarifying, 

Case 2:15-cv-02034-JAM-AC Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 3
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

explaining, and supporting its objections.” Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th 

Cir. 1975). 

 For purposes of this un-opposed motion, the relevance of the discovery defendant seeks is 

plain from the face of the discovery requests. The document requests and interrogatories seek 

information plainly relevant to plaintiff’s claims, and the specific allegations of the complaint. 

The sought deposition testimony of the plaintiff is also plainly relevant. Plaintiff has offered no 

clarification, explanation or support for the admittedly “boilerplate” objections filed in response 

to the document requests and interrogatories. Plaintiff has offered no objection to the deposition, 

nor any excuse for not attending. 

 Plaintiff has thus failed to produce plainly relevant discovery without excuse. 

Defendant’s motion to compel will therefore be granted. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. The November 30, 2016 hearing on this motion is VACATED; 

2. The Motion To Compel (ECF No. 29), is GRANTED, as follows. Plaintiff Sylvie Serrano 

shall: 

a. Provide written responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Set 

of Requests for Production by no later than December 9, 2016; 

b. Produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Defendant’s First Set of 

Requests for Production of Documents by no later than December 9, 2016; and 

c. Appear for a deposition on December 14, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at Steuart Tower, One 

Market Plaza, Suite 1300, San Francisco, California 94105, unless the parties 

 agree to a different date, time and/or place for this deposition. 

DATED: November 28, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02034-JAM-AC Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 3