Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAMELA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GYRUS ACMI, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.5:14-cv-00805-BLF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY REPORT 3

Re: Dkt. No. 147

In this latest flurry of discovery-related filings, defendant Gyrus ACMI, L.P. (GALP) 

seeks an order compelling plaintiff to provide verifications to two sets of interrogatory responses: 

(1) plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Interrogatories (Set One) and (2) her

Response to Defendant’s Interrogatories (Set Two). (Dkt. 147, Exs. C and E). Although titled a 

“Joint Report,” Discovery Report No. 3 was not jointly submitted by the parties. GALP says it 

attempted to submit a joint report, to no avail. In her separately filed opposition, plaintiff claims 

that GALP failed to confer with her before filing the report.1 GALP says that it did, in fact, have 

an in-person meeting with plaintiff during which she agreed to provide the requested verifications; 

 

1

In her opposition, plaintiff also argues that defendant filed the present discovery report without 

waiting for a court order permitting defendant to append additional exhibits to its report. Plaintiff

apparently confuses the present discovery report with an administrative motion GALP has filed in 

connection with a different discovery dispute. The court will address that other discovery matter 

separately.

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 157 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 4
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

but, defendant claims that the verifications were never sent.

Unfortunately, neither side has been particularly observant of the requirements of the 

undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes. Nevertheless, in view of the October 

14, 2016 fact discovery cutoff, and the relative simplicity of the issue presented, this court has 

read and considered all of the papers submitted by the parties in connection with this dispute and

concludes that this matter is suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Having considered the parties’ respective arguments, this court now rules as follows:

There is no question that plaintiff must verify her interrogatory answers. Rule 33 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs interrogatories to parties, requires the responding 

party (here, plaintiff) to answer each interrogatory separately and fully “under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 33(b)(3). On October 12, 2016, plaintiff filed two documents with the court:

 One is titled “Plaintiff’s Verification of Discovery Responses,” which states 

“Plaintiff respectfully submits confirmation that she has served verified responses.” 

(Dkt. 151 at 1). Plaintiff further notes that on October 11, she asked defendant to 

withdraw its proposed order compelling her to serve the requested verifications.

 The other document is titled “Declaration of Pamela Williams in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Verification of Discovery Responses.” (Dkt. 152). The declaration is 

entirely blank, but appears to be signed by plaintiff under the statement “I declare 

under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 

true and correct and that this declaration was executed on [date] October 12, 

2016.” (Id.).

Although it is not entirely clear what plaintiff intended by these two October 12 filings, this court

believes that she may have meant for them to be her verification of the subject interrogatory 

responses. If that is the case, then her October 12 submissions are insufficient for that purpose. 

What plaintiff must do is (1) review her Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Interrogatories 

(Set One) and her Response to Defendant’s Interrogatories (Set Two) and (2) verify in writing 

under oath that those responses are true and correct. Plaintiff is directed to serve her verifications 

for those two sets of interrogatory answers no later than October 27, 2016.

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 157 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

For plaintiff’s guidance, this court observes that plaintiff previously served a verification 

of a prior set of interrogatory responses as follows:

I, the undersigned, say:

I am a party to the above entitled action. I have read the foregoing 

document, entitled PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO 

INTERROGATORIES, and it is true of my own knowledge, except 

as to matters which are therein stated on my information and belief, 

and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 

California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on January 11, 2016, at Redwood City, CA.

(Dkt. 147, Discovery Report 3, Ex. B at ECF p. 23). However, if plaintiff feels she needs 

assistance with the preparation of a verification form, she is encouraged to contact the Federal Pro 

Se Program, located in Room 2070 on the Second Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Jose. 

Appointments may be made by (1) signing up in person at the Federal Pro Se Program office or at 

The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, 152 N. 3rd Street, 3rd Floor, San Jose, CA; or (2) by 

calling 408-297-1480. If she has not already done so, plaintiff is also directed to obtain a copy of 

the court’s Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, available on the court’s website 

(http://cand.uscourts.gov) or from the Clerk’s Office.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 157 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:14-cv-00805-BLF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Glenn Lansing Briggs gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com, vbeechler@kadingbriggs.com

Kymberleigh Damron-Hsiao kdh@kadingbriggs.com, mrogers@kadingbriggs.com, 

vbeechler@kadingbriggs.com

Pamela Williams Pam.Williams1001@gmail.com

5:14-cv-00805-BLF Notice sent by U.S. Mail on 10/18/2016 to:

Pamela Williams

909 Marina Village Parkway #292

Alameda, CA 94501

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 157 Filed 10/18/16 Page 4 of 4