Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00005/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00005-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

FILED 

JUL 2 3 2018 

CLERK, lJ,S. Dl.13Tl~ICT COURT 

SOUTHERN OiSTl'l;~(C1' ~F CAl..IFO. RNIA 

BY _,_ -r>-ntPUTY . .;;:;..,,;;~ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES LINLOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHASE BANKCARD SERVICES, INC.; 

CHASE BANK USA, NA, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 17cv5-WQH(KSC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO "RE-FILE" HIS 

DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

[Doc. No. 46] 

19 Before the Court is plaintiffs "Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 

20 Dispute." [Doc. No. 46.] Despite the title, this filing by plaintiff is not "Joint," because 

21 defendants did not contribute to the "Joint Motion" as required by Chambers' Rule V. This 

22 filing is similar to a prior "Joint Motion" filed by plaintiff that was also not "Joint" [Doc. 

23 No. 39]. On May 9, 2018, the Court issued an Order denying plaintiffs prior "Joint 

24 Motion" [Doc. No. 39] as untimely and for failure to comply with Chambers' Rule V and/or 

25 to meet and confer as required by Chambers' Rule V(B), Civil Local Rule 26.l(a), and 

26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(l.) [Doc. No. 67, at pp. 1-8.] 

27 Plaintiffs new "Joint Motion" [Doc. No. 46] is largely repetitive of his prior "Joint 

28 Motion" [Doc. No. 39]. Plaintiffs new "Joint Motion" [Doc. No. 46] suffers from the 

1 

l 7cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 88 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
1 same procedural defects as the prior "Joint Motion" [Doc. No. 39]. Therefore, forthe same 

2 reasons set forth in the Court's May 9, 2018 Order [Doc. No. 67, at pp. 1-8], the Court 

3 finds that plaintiffs new "Joint Motion" must be DENIED as untimely and for failure to 

4 comply with Chambers' Rule V, Civil Local Rule 26. l(a), and Federal Rule of Civil 

5 Procedure 37(a)(l ). In addition, for the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds 

6 that plaintiffs new "Joint Motion" must be DENIED on the merits. 

7 Background 

8 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. 1 In the First Amended Complaint, 

9 plaintiff generally alleges that he was the victim of credit card fraud and reported the 

10 fraud to defendants, but defendants failed to remove the fraudulent charges or conduct a 

11 reasonable investigation and then reported false and misleading information to credit 

12 reporting agencies in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [Doc. No. 22, at pp. 2-3, 

13 9etseq.] 

14 Discussion 

15 In his new "Joint Motion," plaintiff has requested that the Court grant him leave 

16 "to re-file his discovery requests." [Doc. 46, at p. 2 (emphasis added).] The Court notes 

17 that written discovery requests (i.e., interrogatories, requests for production of 

18 documents, and requests for admissions) "need not be filed [with the Court]unless and 

19 until they are used in the proceedings" (i.e., as a trial exhibit or as an exhibit attached to a 

20 declaration submitted in support of a motion). CivLR 33.l(c), 36. l(c). The reason 

21 plaintiff wants to "re-file" his discovery requests is that he claims defendants have 

22 refused to "provide any substantive discovery." [Doc. No. 46, at p. 2.] He is seeking 

23 leave, because it his understanding that "re-filing" his discovery requests will cause him 

24 

25 

26 

District Courts are obligated to afford a certain amount of leeway to prose litigants 

27 and to construe their pleadings liberally. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 

2010). 28 

2 

17cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 88 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
1 to exceed the amount of discovery requests allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil 

2 Procedure. [Doc. No. 46, at p. 2.] In this regard, the Court notes that Federal Rule of 

3 Civil Procedure 33(a) provides in part as follows: "[A] party may serve on any other 

4 party no more than 25 written interrogatories .... Leave to serve additional 

5 interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(l) and (2)." 

6 Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(l). 

7 As the Court understands it, plaintiff's request "to re-file his discovery requests" is 

8 essentially a request to re-start discovery. Although it is somewhat unclear from the 

9 papers submitted, it appears that plaintiff wants to re-serve defendants with his written 

10 discovery requests, because he is not satisfied with the responses he has already received 

11 from defendants. Without more, plaintiff appears to be seeking an end run around the 45-

12 day rule in the operative Scheduling Order. [Doc. No. 37, at pp. 1-2.] As the Court and 

13 defendants have already advised plaintiff, it is too late for him to request the Court's 

14 assistance in compelling defendants to provide him with further responses to his written 

15 discovery requests. [Doc. No. 67, at p. 2; Doc. No. 46, at p. 46.] The Scheduling Order 

16 in this case states that: "All discovery motions must be filed within 45 days of the 

17 service of an objection, answer, or response which become the subject of dispute .... " 

18 [Doc. No. 37, at p. See also Chamber' Rule V(A).] Defendants responded to plaintiff's 

19 discovery requests on December 26, 2017 [Doc. No. 67, at p. 2], and plaintiff did not file 

20 his previous "Joint Motion" until March 20, 2018 [Doc. No. 39] and did not file the 

21 instant "Joint Motion" until April 5, 2018 [Doc. No. 46], long after the expiration of the 

22 45-day deadline. If the Court were to permit plaintiff to "re-serve" defendants with his 

23 discovery requests, they would, of course, be required to serve plaintiff with new 

24 responses. Plaintiff apparently presumes he would then have another 45 days to file a 

25 discovery motion with the Court. 

26 "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant 

27 to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

28 importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' 

3 

17cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 88 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
1 relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the 

2 discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

3 discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed.R. Civ.P. 26(b)(l). However, "the court 

4 must limit the frequency or extent of discovery ... if it determines that: (i) the discovery 

5 sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative ... ; [or] (ii) the party seeking discovery 

6 has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action .... " 

7 Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

8 Granting plaintiff leave to re-serve all or even some of his discovery requests on 

9 defendants would be inconsistent with Rule 26(b)(l) or Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i) and (ii). 

10 First, it would be duplicative and overly burdensome for defendants to be required to 

11 respond twice to the same discovery requests. Second, the Court has no reason to believe 

12 that plaintiff did not have ample time or opportunity to complete discovery, or that 

13 plaintiff did not receive all responsive documents and information from defendants that 

14 he needs to prosecute his case. 

15 The record indicates that the parties completed their initial disclosures ahead of 

16 schedule on September 27, 2017. [Doc. No. 37, at p. 1.] Then, plaintiff served his 

17 discovery requests on defendants on November 20, 2017, and defendants served plaintiff 

18 with their responses on December 26, 2017. [Doc. No. 67, at p. 2.] The Scheduling 

19 Order in this case was not issued until February 27, 2018. [Doc. No. 37.] The 

20 Scheduling Order requires the parties to complete all fact discovery on or before July 20, 

21 2018. [Doc. No. 37, at p. l.] In short, it is apparent that plaintiff has had nine month or 

22 so to complete discovery. The case is not complex. 

23 Based on other filings, the Court is aware that defendants initially produced "over 

24 100 pages" of non-confidential documents in response to plaintiffs discovery requests, 

25 "including account statements and call recordings." [Doc. No. 40, at pp. 2, 6.] 

26 Defendants also advised plaintiff they would produce additional confidential documents 

27 after a protective order was entered to govern the exchange of confidential documents 

28 and information between the parties. However, plaintiff refused to stipulate to the entry 

4 

l 7cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 88 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
1 of a protective order. [Doc. No. 40, at p. 6.] Later, on May 9, 2018, the Court, over 

2 plaintiffs objections, filed defendants' proposed Protective Order. [Doc. Nos. 68, 69.] 

3 In a more recent filing, defendants' counsel represented as follows: "Following entry of 

4 the Protective Order on May 18, 2018, defendants produced the remaining documents 

5 responsive to plaintiffs requests." [Doc. No. 74, at p. 3; Doc. No. 73, at p. 15.] 

6 Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court finds that defendants' request for leave to re7 serve defendants with his discovery requests must be DENIED. 

8 Conclusion 

9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs "Joint Motion" 

10 must be DENIED as untimely and for failure to comply with Chambers' Rule V, Civil 

11 Local Rule 26.l(a), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(l). [See Doc. No. 67, at pp. 

12 1-8.] Plaintiffs "Joint Motion" is also DENIED on the merits, because it would be 

13 duplicative and overly burdensome to require defendants to respond twice to the same 

14 discovery requests. In addition, plaintiff has already had ample opportunity to complete 

15 discovery in the case, and defendants have produced documents and information in 

16 response to plaintiffs discovery requests. 

17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

18 Dated: July --1::J2., 2018 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Hon. n . rawford 

United States Magistrate Judge 

5 

17cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 88 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5