Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03228-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Employee Pension Plan

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOLDEN GATE LODGE OF 

PLASTERERS' AND SHOPHANDS' 

LOCAL UNION NO.66 OPCMIA, AFLCIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IRONWOOD PLASTERING, 

INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03228-SI 

ORDER RE: SECOND DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 47

Plaintiffs – two unions and several trust funds representing plasterers and masons working 

in the construction industry –accuse defendants – two California corporations and their officers –

of “creat[ing] a double-breasted entity . . . to evade paying fringe benefit contributions” as 

required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Docket No. 40. The 

cutoff for discovery in this case is set for April 30, 2015. Docket No. 49. On February 19, 2015, 

defendants filed a discovery letter disputing the format of discovery produced by plaintiffs. Docket 

No. 47, Def. Letter. This is the second discovery dispute in this case. See Docket No. 40. 

Defendants “propounded [a] Request for Production of Documents that were specific to the 

allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint.” Def. Letter at 1. Plaintiffs’ allegedly responded by producing 

three CD-ROMS comprised exclusively of documents that defendants had produced in an 

unrelated discovery request. Id. Defendants contend that producing the documents in this format 

fails to meet the requisites of the FRCP, which impose a duty upon the parties to “produce 

documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to 

correspond to the categories in the request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).

Case 3:13-cv-03228-SI Document 50 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

The Court’s standing order requires that parties meet and confer in person to resolve 

discovery disputes, and if no resolution is possible, then to file “a concise joint statement of 5 

pages or less, stating the nature and status of their dispute.” Docket No. 16, Standing Order at 6.

The parties have apparently only discussed the present matter via email, Discovery Letter at 1, and 

have failed to submit a joint statement. Additionally, defendants’ letter does not sufficiently 

describe the information it sought to compel, and thus fails to apprise the Court of the “status and 

nature of their dispute.”

Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion, without prejudice to refiling in 

accordance with the Court’s standing order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03228-SI Document 50 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 2