Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04145/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04145-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA HINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4145 CW (EMC)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES

Currently pending before the Court is a discovery dispute in which Defendant the CPUC

asks the Court to compel Plaintiff Donna Hines to respond to interrogatories to which the Court has

already ordered her to respond. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court hereby

GRANTS the motion to compel.

Previously, the Court issued an order requiring Ms. Hines to respond to interrogatories in

which the CPUC asked her to state the facts supporting her contention that (1) she suffered

discriminatory and retaliatory treatment; (2) the CPUC’s Human Resources Department can and has

altered examination results to favor management’s preferred candidates; and (3) she suffered

emotional distress as a result of the CPUC’s actions. See Docket No. 298 (order, filed on

3/19/2010). In her responses, Ms. Hines did not provide any narrative but instead simply referred to

unspecified facts contained in a broad swathe of documents. This is patently insufficient. While

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) allows a party to refer to documents in responding to an

interrogatory, that is only where “the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be

substantially the same for either party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Ms. Hines has made no

Case 4:07-cv-04145-CW Document 341 Filed 05/03/10 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

demonstration that that is the case here. Moreover, Rule 33(d) only allows for such an approach

where the relevant documents are specified “in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to

locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” Id. Ms. Hines’s broad reference

to pleadings, attachments, appendices, and requests for judicial notice is insufficient.

Accordingly, the Court orders Ms. Hines to provide a complete and full response to the

interrogatories at issue within a week of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04145-CW Document 341 Filed 05/03/10 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA HINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4145 CW (EMC)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Donna Hines 

268 Bush Street, #3204 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

415-205-3377 

Dated: May 3, 2010 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: 

Betty Lee

Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-04145-CW Document 341 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 3