Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TIMOTHY GENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEZ AMERICA, INC., 

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1009 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

On February 12, 2007, Defendant Sez America filed two motions to compel Plaintiff to

comply with this court’s prior order of December 6, 2006 (the “December 6 Order”). On April 6, th 1

2007, this court issued an order (the “April 6 Order”) that granted those motions and set a deadline th

of April 27, 2007 for Plaintiff to fully comply with the December 6 Order. On May 18, 2007, th

Defendant Sez America Inc. filed a motion for issue, evidence, dispositive, and monetary sanctions

against Plaintiff, asserting that Plaintiff had failed to serve any supplemental discovery as required by

the April 6 Order. Defendant noticed the hearing for June 26, 2007. Plaintiff initially failed to file th

any opposition to the motion for sanctions by the June 5, 2007 deadline for doing so. Defendant

filed a reply to Plaintiff’s “non-opposition.” On June 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed an ex parte request to

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 207 Filed 07/16/07 Page 1 of 4
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 comparing Plaintiff’s recent supplemental responses to interrogatories to the responses 2

Defendants originally complained were insufficient, the court noticed that Plaintiff’s recent

supplementation omits Interrogatory No. 6. This court’s April 6 Order required Plaintiff to provide th

proper interrogatory responses to “the interrogatories at issue in Defendant’s motions to compel,” which

included Interrogatory No. 6. Yet Plaintiff’s second supplemental responses inexplicably omitted any

supplemental response to this interrogatory. (He also omitted any response to Interrogatory No. 19,

however that interrogatory related to his tenth cause of action which District Judge Fogel has since

dismissed.)

ORDER, page 2

enlarge time for the briefing schedule and to re-schedule the June 26, 2007 hearing. Defendant

opposed the request. This court granted the request and set a new briefing schedule and hearing date.

On July 10, 2007, the parties appeared for hearing on Defendant’s motion for sanctions. Based on

the briefs and arguments submitted, and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART. 

Defendant’s motion for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $8,257.50 to

reimburse Defendant for the fees incurred to bring the present second motion to compel compliance

with this court’s orders. At this time the court does not find it appropriate to award fees for the first

two motions. However, there was clearly no substantial justification for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with this court’s April 6 Order. th

Plaintiff claims to have timely served the supplemental responses and documents by the

deadline set in this court’s prior order. However Plaintiff’s representations and evidence of such

service are conflicting. For example, he submitted a proof of service indicating the documents were

served by mail, yet at the hearing he insisted he hand-delivered the documents. Further, he fails to

adequately explain why, having received Defense counsel’s May 4, 2007 letter notifying Plaintiff

that the supplemental discovery had not been received, he did not immediately deliver another copy. 

Had he done so, the present motion would have been unnecessary. Under all the circumstances, the

court does not find Plaintiff’s claim of timely compliance credible. And, in any event, the

supplemental responses fall short of full compliance with this court’s order as discussed below.

Defendant’s motion for issue, evidence or dispositive sanctions is DENIED contingent on

Plaintiff serving on Defendant, no later than July 27, 2007, supplemental responses that:

1) includes a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 6, which was omitted entirely

from his second supplemental responses;2

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 207 Filed 07/16/07 Page 2 of 4
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

After further review of Plaintiff’s supplemental responses in light of the discussions at 3

the hearing, it appears that Plaintiff contends that Exhibit A to his supplemental responses covers all of

the documents he is identifying in response to all interrogatories asking him to identify documents. (As

Defendant noted at the hearing, Plaintiff only references Exhibit A in his supplemental response to one

interrogatory–Interrogatory No. 15.) That kind of mass identification of documents does not comply

with this court’s prior order, and is not a proper way to respond to multiple interrogatories that request

identification of differing categories of documents. For each interrogatory asking for identification of

documents, Plaintiff must include in his supplemental response the Bates numbers for the specific

documents that he is identifying in response to the particular interrogatory. Any documents that do not

fall within the ambit of a particular interrogatory should not be included within the response to that

interrogatory. 

Plaintiff’s claim at the hearing that he was unaware he was allowed to state the amounts 4

of these damages is not credible. In its original motion to compel, Defendant expressly complained that

Plaintiff had not provided any amounts in his response. The court granted that motion, implicitly

requiring Plaintiff to provide the amounts of his claimed damages in his supplemental response.

As previously noted by the court, defense counsel are signed up for electronic filing, and 5

will be getting notice of this order through the court’s electronic filing system. The court will also send

hard copies of the order to both Plaintiff and defense counsel by first class mail.

ORDER, page 3

2) in response to Interrogatory Nos. 15, 17, 20, 21 & 22, specify the Bates numbers for

any responsive documents that have Bates numbers; and 3

3) in response to Interrogatory No. 18, states the specific dollar amounts of: a) all

earnings Plaintiff claims he lost as a result of the conduct alleged in his fifth, sixth

and seventh cases of action; b) all benefits Plaintiff claims he lost as a result of the

conduct alleged in his fifth, sixth and seventh cases of action; c) all legal expenses he

has incurred as a result of the conduct alleged in his fifth, sixth and seventh cases of

action; and d) all attorneys fees he has incurred as a result of the conduct alleged in

his fifth, sixth and seventh cases of action. 

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may not later amend any of the subject

interrogatory responses to add any additional facts, or produce additional documents responsive to

the subject document requests, absent either written agreement of Defendant or order of the court for

good cause shown. See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 37(c)(1) (precluding a party from using evidence that has

not been seasonably disclosed, absent a showing of either substantial justification or lack of harm);

see also, Yeti By Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting

that sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) are “self-executing” and “automatic”). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall immediately serve a copy of this

order on Plaintiff by fax.5

Dated: 7/13/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 207 Filed 07/16/07 Page 3 of 4
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, page 4

copies mailed on to:

Timothy Gens

Post Office Box 61029

Palo Alto, CA 94306

Jason A. Geller

David P. Borovsky

Long & Levit

465 California St., # 500

San Francisco, CA 94104

 _______________________________

 CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 207 Filed 07/16/07 Page 4 of 4