Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02763/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02763-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIKA MACIAS and CYNTHIA

RICH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MYRON LANGE,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14-CV-2763-GPC (JMA)

ORDER (1) CONSTRUING

PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS” AS A STATUS

REPORT REGARDING

DISCOVERY; (2) DIRECTING

FULL COMPLIANCE WITH

APRIL 7, 2016 ORDER; AND 

(3) SCHEDULING DISCOVERY

CONFERENCE

On April 28, 2016, Plaintiffs Erika Macias and Cynthia Rich filed a

“Motion for Sanctions” onto the Court’s docket. See ECF No. 79. Civil

Local Rule 7.1 requires that “[a]ll hearing dates for any matters on which a

ruling is required must be obtained from the clerk of the judge to whom the

case is assigned.” Civ. L.R. 7.1 b. Plaintiffs attempted to obtain a hearing

date from the undersigned’s law clerk on April 28, 2016, prior to filing the

motion, but were informed the clerk was not available until May 2, 2016. 

Despite not having been given a hearing date, Plaintiffs filed their motion,

indicating that the hearing date was “TBA” and that the motion would be renoticed once the law clerk returned to the Court. See ECF No. 79 at 1.

The requirement that counsel obtain a hearing date from the clerk of

14cv2763

Case 3:14-cv-02763-GPC-JMA Document 80 Filed 05/03/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

the judge to whom the case is assigned allows the Court to not only

manage its calendar and docket, but also to determine whether to permit

the motion to be filed. In this instance, the Court would not have permitted

Plaintiffs to file their motion. The motion relates to an ongoing discovery

dispute which has already necessitated Court intervention. See ECF Nos.

29, 55, 58, 67. The Court has discretion to handle discovery disputes,

including ongoing discovery disputes, in ways other than by noticed motion. 

See Chambers Rules; Civ. L.R. 26.1 e. Moreover, counsel are required to

thoroughly meet and confer before bringing any discovery matters before

the Court. See Civ. L.R. 26.1 a; Chambers Rules. This has not occurred

here.

The Court DECLINES to consider Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions as

Plaintiffs did not meet the motion filing requirements of this Court. The

Court instead CONSTRUES Plaintiff’s motion as a status report regarding

the outstanding discovery in this matter. The Court FURTHER ORDERS

as follows:

1. Defendant is DIRECTED to fully comply with the Court’s April 7,

2016 order by the close of business on May 5, 2016. Specifically,

Defendant shall provide:

a. All documents in Defendant’s possession, custody or control

responsive to Document Request Nos. 16, 23, 28, and 30,

including his tax returns as requested in Request No. 28, even

if they are in the possession of his accountant. See, e.g.,

Wardrip v. Hart, 934 F. Supp. 1282, 1286 (D. Kan. 1996)

(documents in the possession of a party’s accountant are

deemed within that party’s control for purposes of Rule 34

discovery). 

//

2 14cv2763

Case 3:14-cv-02763-GPC-JMA Document 80 Filed 05/03/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

b. A response to Interrogatory No. 14.

c. As previously ordered, a declaration, under oath, describing

Defendant’s efforts to locate all of the discovery addressed in

the Court’s April 7, 2016 order, including a description of who

assisted Defendant with the search, the search date(s), search

location(s), and duration and nature of search. The declaration

shall further address whether Defendant has produced all

documents in his possession, custody and control responsive

to the discovery requests addressed in the April 7, 2016 order,

as well as whether any records have been destroyed or

discarded since the filing of this action. If Defendant has no

documents in his possession, custody or control responsive to

any of the discovery requests, he shall so state in his

declaration.

Defendant’s counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)

(describing effect of attorney’s signature on discovery responses). 

2. If any issues remain in dispute after Defendant complies with

the requirements of paragraph 1, counsel shall meet and confer in person

by the close of business on May 6, 2016 regarding any remaining issues. 

3. The Court expects full compliance with this Order by both

sides such that no further filings seeking court intervention will be

necessary.

4. The Court shall convene a telephonic Discovery Conference on

May 9, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. to confirm that all issues have been resolved.

Counsel for each party shall participate in the conference, and shall use

//

//

//

3 14cv2763

Case 3:14-cv-02763-GPC-JMA Document 80 Filed 05/03/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

the following call-in information: Dial-in Number 866-590-5055, Access

Code 2275709.

Failure to comply with this Order will be cause for the imposition

of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2016

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

4 14cv2763

Case 3:14-cv-02763-GPC-JMA Document 80 Filed 05/03/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4