Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02529/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02529-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

STEVEN MONRAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID KRUEGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02529-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING 1/29/15 JOINT 

LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 45

On January 29, 2015, the parties submitted a joint discovery letter brief concerning 

Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents, and whether Defendants’ failure to timely 

respond constitutes a waiver of all objections. (1/29/2015 Joint Letter, “Joint Letter,” Dkt. No. 45

at 2.) 

Upon review of the joint letter, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court orders 

Defendants to file amended responses and produce responsive documents, without raising any 

objections, within 14 days of this order.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 23, 2014, and November 5, 2014, respectively, Plaintiff served his first set of 

requests for production of documents on Defendants’ two attorneys. (Joint Letter at 2.) The 

parties met and conferred and, on December 15, 2014, agreed that Defendants’ responses would 

be served by December 29, 2015. Id. Defendants did not serve responses. Id.

On January 22, 2015, the parties spoke on the telephone and Defendants promised that 

responses would be served by the end of the day on January 22, 2015. Id. Defendants again did 

not serve responses. Id. 

On January 27, 2015, Defendants produced 11 responsive documents, and, on January 28, 

Case 4:14-cv-02529-KAW Document 47 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2015, provided their written responses, but answered subject to objection. 

On January 29, 2015, the parties file the joint letter.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(A), “the party to whom requests for

production are directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served.” The parties 

may stipulate to an extension of time to respond under Rule 29. Id. A party’s failure to object to 

discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection. Richmark Corp. 

v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 

1154, 1160 (9th Cir.1981).

III.DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that Defendants waived all objections by failing to respond to the 

requests within 30 days of service. (Joint Letter at 2-3.) Defendants have asserted numerous 

objections to the requests, including objections based on attorney-client privilege, the attorney 

work product doctrine, privacy rights, and the mediation privilege. Id.

Defendants state that document production has been difficult due to a 2003 fire at Kruger 

Bros., which destroyed files and has required that they obtain documents through third parties to 

satisfy their discovery obligations. (Joint Letter at 3.) Defendants contend that their production is 

complete, and that they continue to produce responsive documents as they are located. (Joint 

Letter at 3.)

Regarding the dispute at hand, it appears that the parties stipulated during their meet and 

confer efforts, either orally or in writing, to an extension of time for Defendants to respond, so 

Defendants’ failure to serve responses within 30 days is not an automatic waiver. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 34(b)(2)(A). By citing a personal matter that affected counsel’s availability in December 2014, 

however, Defendants appear to concede that they did not file their responses timely. (Joint Letter 

at 3-4.) Even after Defendants missed the December 29, 2014 deadline, the parties continued to 

meet and confer, and agreed to a later deadline of January 22, 2015, which Defendants also 

missed. (Joint Letter at 2.) 

Defendants submit that the Court should address any waiver of privileges by a noticed 

Case 4:14-cv-02529-KAW Document 47 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 3
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

motion or, in the alternative, allow Defendants’ attorney to document fully what exchanges took 

place regarding the deadlines and subsequent production. (Joint Letter at 3.) The joint letter 

format, however, is utilized to replace discovery motions, specifically motions to compel, so the 

Court declines to consider this issue by way of a noticed motion. Further, Defendants do not 

claim that they responded timely, even after obtaining numerous extensions of time to respond, so 

additional briefing is unnecessary.

Accordingly, Defendants failure to furnish written responses by the January 22, 2015 

deadline constitutes a waiver of their objections regarding the first set of requests for production of 

documents. The Court notes that the parties currently have a stipulated protective order in effect, 

which may alleviate some concerns regarding additional, responsive documents that are now 

subject to production.

IV.CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s first set of

requests for production of documents constitutes a waiver of all objections. Accordingly, 

Defendants are ordered to provide amended responses and responsive documents, without 

objection, within 14 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2015

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02529-KAW Document 47 Filed 02/13/15 Page 3 of 3