Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07081/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07081-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The parties previously stipulated to private mediation. See Docket No. 17.

*E-filed 11/27/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IQBAL HUSAIN, 

 Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant,

v.

AMJAD KHAN, 

 Defendant / Counter-Complainant,

 /

Case No. C06-07081 JF (HRL)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS

Re: Docket No. 39

In this breach of contract case, Plaintiff here seeks sanctions for Defendant's failure to

mediate and for his allegedly deficient initial disclosures. The motion is unopposed and was

referred by the presiding judge. See Docket No. 46. 

A. Defendant's Attendance at Mediation

Husain alleges that Khan failed to attend a court ordered mediation session. At the Case

Management Conference before Judge Fogel, the parties were ordered to attend private

mediation before July 13, 2007.1

 Sometime thereafter, the parties agreed to postpone this date

and to mediate in August. After that stipulation and order was entered, Khan informed Husain

that he would only attend the mediation by telephone from Bangladesh. Plaintiff

understandably declined this offer and cancelled the mediation session. Since there were no

Case 5:06-cv-07081-JF Document 52 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2 Husain did not serve a request for production of documents.

2

costs associated with this cancellation, Husain seeks sanctions for attorney time spent dealing

with the delayed scheduling. 

B. Defendant's Initial Disclosures 

Although Khan served an initial disclosure document, Husain continues to press for

sanctions because that initial disclosure did not include a document production.2

 Plaintiff relies

on FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a) in support of his argument; however, that rule does not require initial

disclosure document production. Rather, it states that

a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to other parties ... a copy of,

or a description by category and location of, all documents, electronically stored

information, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the

party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless

solely for impeachment. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). The commentary to the rule confirms this point:

"subparagraph (B) does not require production of any documents ... If, as will be more typical,

only the description is provided, the other parties are expected to obtain the documents desired

by proceeding under Rule 34 or informal requests." Adv. Comm. Notes. (1993). Thus, Khan

was not required to produce any documents in his initial disclosures. 

At the hearing, Husain claimed for the first time that Khan's initial disclosure, as

produced, did not adequately describe the documents. This is not so. While Khan's initial

disclosure is somewhat sketchy, it nevertheless meets the minimum requirements for a

description by category and location. Furthermore, Husain's own Rule 26 description of

categories and locations of documents, served just before Khan's, is nearly identical to Khan's! 

CONCLUSION

Husain urges dismissal of Khan's counterclaims and defenses, $5,510.00 in attorney's

fees for time spent trying to schedule the mediation and for preparing the instant motion, and /

Case 5:06-cv-07081-JF Document 52 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

or for various evidentiary preclusion sanctions. In fact, no sanctions are warranted. 

Accordingly, Husain's motion for sanctions is DENIED. 

However, it does appear that Khan has dragged his feet on mediating. Therefore, the

parties, including Khan, are ordered to personally attend a private mediation session no later

than January 15, 2008 (or, if the mediator is not available by then, at his soonest available date

thereafter). The parties shall meet and confer immediately to schedule the mediation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/27/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-07081-JF Document 52 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

5:06-cv-7081 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Richard Proctor Doyle , Jr rdoyle@jd-law.com, rbeverly@jd-law.com 

David Stanley Pearson attorney@mac.com 

Eric J Sidebotham eric.sidebotham@ejs-law.com, dan.shafer@ejs-law.com,

ryan.smith@ejs-law.com 

5:06-cv-7081 Notice has been delivered by other means to: 

Larry Israel 

Larry Israel & Associates

4454 Deer Ridge Rd

Blackhawk, CA 94506-6017

Amjad Khan

3301 Rose Lane

Falls Church, VA 22042

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 11/27/07

 /s/ KRO 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-07081-JF Document 52 Filed 11/27/07 Page 4 of 4