Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00020/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00020-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

JAWOLEI CHEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00020-HSG 

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 25

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 24, 2014, Defendant Best Buy served its first set of interrogatories and second 

set of document requests on Plaintiff Jawolei Chea. The deadline to respond to this discovery was 

November 26, 2014. Chea served her responses on December 22, 2014. 

On February 23, 2015, the parties filed a joint letter brief describing their discovery dispute 

over Chea’s late service of her responses and the adequacy of those responses. For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court finds that Chea has waived her objections to Best Buy’s discovery requests, 

except for 1) objections as to privilege and work product protection, and 2) any other objections to 

Interrogatory 9. The Court further orders Chea to remove all waived objections from and fully 

respond to Best Buy’s first set of interrogatories and second set of document requests within five 

days of the date of this Order. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Waiver of Objections

Failure to object to Rule 33 or Rule 34 discovery requests within the time required 

generally results in the waiver of any objections. Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 

959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). However, the Court retains discretion to excuse a lateresponding party from waiver “for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).

Case 4:14-cv-00020-HSG Document 28 Filed 03/10/15 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

Chea has not made any showing of good cause warranting an exception to the waiver rule. 

It is undisputed that Chea served her responses to Best Buy’s first set of interrogatories and second 

set of document requests nearly a month after the response deadline had passed. Furthermore, 

Chea never sought an extension to the deadline. Chea’s argument that the associate “responsible 

for the discovery responses” left on December 15, 2014 is not persuasive. Not only did the 

associate’s departure occur after the deadline for responding to Best Buy’s discovery, it also is no 

excuse for failing to seek an extension prior to the deadline. Based on Chea’s actions, this Court 

finds no good cause to relieve Chea of the consequences of her failure to timely file her discovery 

responses. However, the Court in its discretion will not impose waiver of Chea’s objections based 

on privilege and work product, or her objections to Interrogatory 9. See Liguori v. Hansen, 2012 

WL 760747, at *14 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012).

B. Adequacy of Chea’s Responses to Interrogatories 7 and 8

Chea objects that she cannot answer Best Buy’s Interrogatories 7 and 8 because the term 

“occupation” is “vague, unintelligible, and ambiguous.” This objection is now moot, given Chea’s 

failure to timely respond to Best Buy’s discovery requests. Even if it were not moot, the Court 

finds that the term “occupation” as used in Best Buy’s interrogatories is not objectionable. Chea

gives no reason why she cannot provide a “good faith interpretation” in response to these 

interrogatories, as she did for Interrogatory 6, which similarly asks about clothing items worn 

“within the occupation(s) specified” in Chea’s response to Interrogatory 5. Chea must fully 

respond to Best Buy’s Interrogatories 7 and 8.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Chea’s objections to Best Buy’s 

first set of interrogatories and second set of document requests are waived, except as to privilege 

and work product protection, and except as to any other objections to Interrogatory 9. IT IS 

FURTHER ORDERED that, within five days of the date of this Order, Chea shall remove all 

waived objections and provide complete responses to Best Buy’s first set of interrogatories and 

second set of document requests.

Case 4:14-cv-00020-HSG Document 28 Filed 03/10/15 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00020-HSG Document 28 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 3