Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00106/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00106-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

METTEYYA BRAHMANA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHILIP CHARLES LEMBO, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 09-0106 RMW (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

On February 23, 2010, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for

hearing on Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions. Based on the briefs and arguments

submitted, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED

on the condition that Plaintiff fully complies with this order. Terminating sanctions are generally not

warranted unless there is prejudice to the moving party and less drastic sanctions are unavailable. 

See Valley Eng'rs, Inc. v. Elec. Eng'g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9 Cir. 1998). Here, Defendants th

have not shown they will be prejudiced, and lesser sanctions are available that may well induce

Plaintiff to remedy the deficiencies in his discovery responses.. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with a privilege log that

lists each document that is responsive to one of Defendants’ document requests, but that Plaintiff is

Case 5:09-cv-00106-PSG Document 171 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

withhold on grounds of privilege or work product protection. The log shall identify the general

nature of the document, the author, any recipient(s), the date it was created, and the privilege or work

product protection asserted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than March 8, 2010, Plaintiff shall produce to

Defendants any documents responsive to any of Defendants’ document requests that Plaintiff has

withheld from production on the grounds that he intends to use them for impeachment. Plaintiff

mentioned impeachment during the discussion of what documents should be listed on the privilege

log. The court notes that a document may not be withheld from production in response to a Rule 34

document request on the grounds that it will be used solely for impeachment. See, e.g., Gutshall v.

New Prime, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 43, 44-45 (W.D.Va. 2000). 

The scope of discovery is broad. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides:

“Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is

as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is

relevant to any party's claim or defense--including the existence, description, nature,

custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the

identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good

cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter

involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).” 

Although Rule 26(a)(1) and (3) exempts materials to be used solely for impeachment from

initial and pretrial disclosures, there is no similar exemption for document requests propounded

pursuant to Rule 34. See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 34.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, absent an order of the court or agreement of Defendants to

the contrary, Plaintiff may not withhold any document from production on the grounds the document

is not relevant. If a document is responsive to any of Defendants’ document requests, Plaintiff must

produce it unless it is subject to a privilege or work product protection (in which case it must be

listed on the privilege log).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide a supplemental response to

CyberData Interrogatory No. 25. The supplemental response shall identify by name and address of

each witness referred to in Paragraphs 30, 31, 33, 34 and 40 of the Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide a supplemental response to Lembo

Case 5:09-cv-00106-PSG Document 171 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 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

ORDER, page 3

Interrogatory No. 2. The supplemental response shall identify by name and address of each witness

that Plaintiff believes can support his claim that he was terminated in violation of state or federal

law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide supplemental responses to

CyberData Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 7 that states, for each of his convictions: 1) the city and state

where he was convicted; 2) the approximate year of the conviction; 3) the offense charged; and

4) the court. If Plaintiff has records of the conviction within his possession, he shall also provide the

case number and specific date of the conviction. Plaintiff shall also execute any release required by a

state or federal court for release of records from the courts’ criminal case files to Defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for each interrogatory (other than interrogatories 6 and 7

specifically addressed above) for which Plaintiff indicated he could not recall the responsive

information, Plaintiff shall supplement his response to provide as much information as he can recall

in order to allow Defendants to attempt to obtain the information from other sources.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall supplement his initial disclosures to more

specifically identify the subject matter(s) about which he believes each identified witness is likely to

have discoverable information.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as otherwise expressly specified herein, Plaintiff

shall comply with this order no later than March 22, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may file a motion for monetary sanctions,

including any sums spent to obtain information and/or documents responsive to their discovery

requests that Plaintiff should have provided to Defendants in complying with this court’s order

issued December 8, 2010 (entered December 9, 2010 at docket no. 120), and which he has not

provided to Defendants by March 22, 2010. Plaintiff is correct that Defendants are equally able to

obtain some of the information sought. However, in responding to the discovery requests it was

Plaintiff’s obligation to provide information that is within his knowledge or reasonably available to

him, and documents that are within his possession custody or control. See, e.g., Calderon v. U.S.,

2008 WL 1787497, *2 (S.D. Cal. April 15, 2008) (noting that “party may propound interrogatories

which require the answering party to ‘furnish such information as is available to the party’ after

Case 5:09-cv-00106-PSG Document 171 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 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

ORDER, page 4

conducting a reasonable inquiry,” and that under Rule 34, “a party may request production of

documents relevant to the litigation that are in the opposing party’s possession, custody or control”);

see also, Pilling v. General Motors Corp., 45 F.R.D. 366, 369 (D. Utah, 1968) (“An individual party

is in no better position than a corporation to claim lack of knowledge if the information reasonably

can be secured”). If Plaintiff insists on requiring Defendants to obtain information and/or documents

that Plaintiff was obligated to provide in response to Defendants’ discovery requests and this court’s

prior order compelling the discovery, then the cost incurred by Defendants to obtain the information

and/or documents is recoverable as part of the “reasonable expenses” caused by Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with this court’s prior order. See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 37(b)(2)(C). 

Dated: Feb. 26, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:09-cv-00106-PSG Document 171 Filed 02/26/10 Page 4 of 4