Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01252/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01252-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ZABIT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CATERPILLAR, INC., and PETERSON

POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-01252 JSW

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTES

On July 30, 2007, this Court issued an Order resolving the parties’ joint discovery

dispute. In that Order, the Court stated that if there were specific requests for production or

interrogatories that were not covered by the Order, the parties could submit an additional letter

brief outlining any remaining disputes by no later than August 10, 2007. On August 10, 2007,

Plaintiff submitted a motion for discovery, which Defendants have opposed. 

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is not in compliance with

either the Court’s Standing Order regarding discovery disputes or the July 30, 2007 Order. 

With one exception, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons set forth herein.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request that Defendants produce the Warranty Manual

referenced in the joint letter brief that initially was submitted to the Court. The Court’s July 30,

2007, should have required Defendants to produce that document and its updates.

Plaintiff’s request for the email referenced in point 2 of his motion is DENIED. 

Defendants responded that they have been unable to locate the document.

Case 3:06-cv-01252-JSW Document 138 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s remaining requests are DENIED. Based on the documents submitted to the

Court, Defendants’ responses were sent to Plaintiff in January 2007. If Plaintiff believed that

Defendants were not complying with their discovery obligations, he had adequate time to bring

these matters to the Court’s attention before the eve of a hearing on motions for summary

judgment. Plaintiff now asks the Court to order the Defendants to “immediately produce all the

information requested,” in the exhibits attached to his motion. Such a request is not in

compliance with the letter or spirit of the Court’s July 30, 2007 Order, which contemplated that

the parties would identify with particularity what discovery responses were outstanding and or

insufficient. Moreover, the deadline for all discovery to be completed is January 31, 2008.

Accordingly, the request is DENIED. Any further discovery disputes regarding the adequacy of

any party’s responses shall be submitted to the Court by way of a joint letter brief and shall

identify with particularity the particular interrogatory or request for production that is at issue

and shall identify with particularity the reasons any party believes any other party’s response is

incomplete or inadequate.

The Court also addresses the matter of Plaintiff’s deposition, which Defendants raise in

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. In its Order of July 30, 2007, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

appear for a further deposition by no later than August 10, 2007. That deadline was set in light

of the pending motions for summary judgment, which are set for hearing on August 24, 2007. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff shall appear for a deposition regarding the issues

set forth in the July 30, 2007 Order by no later than August 17, 2007. This deadline shall not

be extended.

Plaintiff has three attorneys representing him in this matter. Therefore, the Court does

not find unavailability of counsel to be an adequate reason for the delay in the deposition. 

Further, Defendants’ exhibits in opposition to the motion show that Plaintiff may not respond to

his counsel in a timely fashion. Plaintiff chose to bring this lawsuit and has chosen to maintain

it. Plaintiff is responsible for pursuing this matter in a diligent fashion. Accordingly, should

Plaintiff fail to appear for the deposition required by the July 30, 2007 Order and this Order, the

Case 3:06-cv-01252-JSW Document 138 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Court shall issue an Order to Show Cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for his

failure to appear. The Court HEREBY ADVISES Plaintiff that it shall consider all possible

sanctions that may be an appropriate remedy for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with these Orders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01252-JSW Document 138 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 3