Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

Order (No: 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ALFRED LAM, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CITY & COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB) 

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ 

DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS DATED 

JULY 8, 2015 AND JULY 16, 2015 

[Re: ECF Nos. 123, 128] 

INTRODUCTION 

On July 8, 2015, the defendant City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) filed a discovery 

letter brief. (Discovery Letter Brief, ECF No. 123.)1

 On July 16, 2015, the plaintiffs Alfred Lam 

and Paula Leiato filed a discovery letter brief in response. (Plaintiffs’ Discovery Letter Brief, ECF 

No. 128.) The court held a discovery hearing on July 23, 2015, grants the CCSF’s motion to 

compel, and orders the following discovery. 

ANALYSIS 

I. DEPOSITIONS 

The court’s order is that the plaintiffs must appear for their depositions. At the hearing, the 

 

1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents. 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 132 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 6
2 

ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 

parties discussed scheduling and agreed to work out a deposition schedule in the next week. The 

court informed each plaintiff that they must communicate with the CCSF’s counsel to schedule 

depositions, address discovery and other case-management issues, and confer before raising any 

disagreements with the court. Ms. Leiato may not continue to communicate only through Mr. 

Lam, as the CCSF’s counsel stated has been the case. She must communicate with the CCSF’s 

counsel, too. Because the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit, they must participate in all aspects of it, 

including discovery. If they refuse to do so, they risk sanctions (including the sanction of dismissal 

of the case). 

II. INITIAL DISCLOSURES 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), a party to an action must make initial 

disclosures. Rule 26(a)(1)(A) states: 

(A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated 

or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide 

to the other parties: 

(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each 

individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects 

of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims 

or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment; 

(ii) a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, 

electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing 

party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its 

claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment; 

(iii) a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing 

party—who must also make available for inspection and copying as under 

Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or 

protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including 

materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and 

(iv) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any insurance agreement 

under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a 

possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments 

made to satisfy the judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). In general, “[a] party must make the initial disclosures at or within 14 

days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or court 

order . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). A party also has an ongoing duty to supplement or correct 

the initial disclosures “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 132 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 

disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information 

has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in 

writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). 

This lawsuit was filed in 2010, the parties had their Rule 26(f) conference years ago, and they 

told the district court in a joint case-management-conference statement that they would serve their 

initial disclosures on or before September 12, 2011. (See 9/1/2011 CMC Statement, ECF No. 21 at 

5.) The plaintiffs apparently have not served theirs. At the hearing, the court ordered the plaintiffs 

to serve their initial disclosures within two weeks (meaning, by August 3, 2015). 

III. FAILURE TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

The CCSF first served its requests for production of documents on the plaintiffs in July 2012, 

and then it re-served them on the plaintiffs in June 2014 after the district court lifted the stay. 

(Discovery Letter Brief, ECF No. 123 at 3.) On December 1, 2014, more than 30 days beyond the 

time to respond, the plaintiffs responded with 500 pages and one document. (Id.) They also 

offered a boilerplate response that the discovery was burdensome and that they had already 

provided substantial documentation. (Id.). 

The court finds that the plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond means that they waived their right 

to object. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be 

stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for 

good cause, excuses the failure.”); Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 

1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the 

time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th 

Cir. 1981) (“Generally, in the absence of an extension of time or good cause, the failure to object 

to interrogatories within the time fixed by Rule 33, FRCivP, constitutes a waiver of any 

objection.”). And although some courts “read into Rule 34 the discretion granted under Rule 

33(b)(4) (dealing with interrogatories) to excuse untimely objections to requests for production,” 

Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. P. before Trial § 11:1905 (The Rutter Guide 2015) (citing Blumenthal v. 

Drudge, 186 F.R.D. 236, 240 (D.D.C. 1999)), and other courts have granted relief from such a 

waiver “upon a proper showing,” see id. § 11:1906 (citing In re Uranium Antitrust Litig., 480 F. 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 132 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 

Supp. 1138, 1149 (N.D. Il. 1979)), the plaintiffs have not made (or tried to make) such a showing. 

On this record, the court finds that the plaintiffs have waived their rights to object to CCSF’s 

requests for production of documents. See Rijhwani v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. C 13-

05881 LB, 2015 WL 848554, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2015) (holding that a party who failed to 

timely respond to requests for production of documents waived his right to object to them). 

Therefore, they must fully respond to each request by August 3, 2015. 

The one caveat is that the court does not have copies of the requests themselves. To the extent 

that they implicate medical records relevant to emotional distress (as the interrogatories addressed 

in the next section do), the court imposes limits on the production of medical information (as 

discussed in the next section). 

IV. DEFICIENT INTERROGATORY RESPONSES; MEDICAL RECORDS 

The CCSF first served special interrogatories on the plaintiffs in June 2012, and then it reserved them on the plaintiffs in June 2014 after the district court lifted the stay. (Discovery Letter 

Brief, ECF No. 123 at 4.) Interrogatory Nos. 10-12 state as follows: 

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: DESCRIBE all non-economic damages YOU have or 

will suffer as a result of wrongful conduct alleged in the COMPLAINT, including 

the dollar value of those damages and how computed. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: DESCRIBE all humiliation, embarrassment, mental 

anguish, and/or mental, emotional and physical distress, and discomfort YOU have 

or will suffer as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged in the COMPLAINT, 

including the dollar value of those damages and how computed. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: IDENTIFY every INDIVIDUAL and/or HEALTH 

CARE PROVIDER from which YOU have sought or received care, treatment or 

evaluation at any time for any injury YOU have or will suffer as a result of the 

wrongful conduct alleged in the COMPLAINT. 

(Id.) 

The plaintiffs did not timely respond to the interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) (the 

party to whom an interrogatory is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being 

served). The plaintiffs finally responded in December 2014. With respect to Interrogatory Nos. 10-

12, they offered the following identical response: 

Objection. The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can 

be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or 

less expensive. F.R.C.P. 26(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff has already provided substantial 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 132 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH (LB)) 

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 

documentation to demonstrate this and CCSF also has this documentation is [sic] 

their possession and control. However, where the Court grants leave of Court to 

allow the Fourth Amended Complaint to be admitted OR CCSF consents to this 

request in presenting the Court with the Fourth Amended Complaint, than this 

question will have a much more definitive answer. 

(Discovery Letter Brief, ECF No. 123 at 4.) 

The CCSF first argues that the plaintiffs waived their objections by not timely responding to 

the interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Davis, 650 F.2d at 1160. Rule 33(b)(4), however, 

allows a court to excuse the failure to timely respond for good cause. In determining whether a 

party has shown good cause, a court should evaluate relevant factors, including: (1) the length of 

the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the existence of bad faith; (4) the prejudice to the party 

seeking the disclosure; (5) the nature of the request; and (6) the harshness of imposing the waiver. 

See Hall v. Sullivan, 231 F.R.D. 468, 474 (D. Md. 2005); see Karr v. Napolitano, No. C 11-02207 

LB, 2012 WL 1965855, at *5-6 (May 31, 2012) (applying these factors). 

One issue is relevance. As always, the court must first determine whether the information 

sought is relevant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (Subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 

26(b)(2)(C), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 

any party's claim or defense . . . .”). The argument for relevance is that the plaintiffs assert 

damages for pain and suffering. (Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 39 at 25.) Counsel for the 

CCSF pointed out that if the plaintiffs waived their emotional distress damages, she would 

withdraw the interrogatories. Mr. Lam at least suggested that he might. Counsel for the CCSF said 

that she had proposed waivers, and the court asks that she provide them immediately to the 

plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs waive emotional-distress damages, the CCSF will withdraw the 

interrogatories, and the plaintiffs need not answer them. The plaintiffs must either waive the 

damages or respond to the interrogatories by August 3, 2015. 

Another issue is that Interrogatory No. 12 raises concerns about access to medical records that 

may be privileged. The interrogatory itself is not problematic: it asks the plaintiffs to identify 

medical providers who treated them and does not ask them to divulge any “confidential 

communications” with the providers. See Stallworth v. Brollini, 288 F.R.D. 439, 443 (N.D. Cal. 

2012). But to the extent that the RFPs seek the medical records related to those examinations or 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 132 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

OR

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 

trea

fed

see

pat

by 

rele

em

and

em

for

the

the

pro

this

RDER (No. 4:

atments, the

deral law of p

e also Jaffee 

tient and her

the privilege

evant to pain

motional distr

d makes no c

motional distr

The court r

r damages) w

e standard an

ere are any d

ocess after co

The court g

s order. This

IT IS SO O

Dated: July

10-cv-04641-

se likely are

privilege wh

v. Redmond

r psychothera

e). And gene

n and sufferi

ress, so long 

claim for int

ress. See Sta

raised the iss

with the parti

nd the parties

disagreement

onferring ab

grants the CC

s disposes of

ORDERED.

y 23, 2015 

-PJH (LB)) 

e confidentia

hen the evide

d, 518 U.S. 1

apist, and th

erally, courts

ing, even wh

as the plain

tentional infl

llworth, 288

sue of the ap

ies at the hea

s’ conferenc

ts, the parties

out the dispu

CSF’s motio

f ECF Nos. 1

.

al, privileged

ence in quest

1, 15, 18 (199

e notes taken

s in this distr

hen the plain

ntiff seeks on

liction of em

8 F.R.D. at 4

propriate sco

aring. The co

e about the i

s may raise t

ute first. 

CONCL

on to compel

123 and 128

_____

LAUR

Unite

d communica

tion is releva

96) (holding

n during the

rict quash su

ntiff alleges a

nly “garden v

motional distr

43-44 (colle

ope of produ

ourt anticipa

issue should

them with th

LUSION 

l discovery s

. 

__________

REL BEELE

ed States Ma

ations. See id

ant to both s

g that the con

eir counselin

ubpoenas for

a stand-alon

variety” emo

ress or negli

ecting cases)

uction (given

ates that the 

d resolve any

he court via t

subject to the

___________

ER 

agistrate Judg

d. at 442 (ap

state and fed

nversations b

g sessions, a

r medical rec

e claim of in

otional distre

igent inflictio

). 

n the charge

CCSF’s con

y dispute. Th

the joint-lett

e conditions 

__________

ge 

6

pplying 

deral claims)

between a 

are protected

cords 

nfliction of 

ess damages

on of 

s and claims

nsideration o

hat said, if 

ter-brief 

set forth in 

_____ 

6

;

d

s

f 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 132 Filed 07/23/15 Page 6 of 6