Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03914/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03914-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS O’NEIL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HENKEL ADHESIVE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-03914 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Defendant has filed a letter brief seeking an order compelling discovery responses, and

requesting attorneys’ fees incurred in pursuing this matter. For the following reasons, the Court

GRANTS IN PART defendant’s requests.

On March 5, 2007, defendant served plaintiff with “Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set Three,” and

“Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff, Set Two.” Plaintiff had until April 9, 2007, to

respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 24, 6. Plaintiff did not file any response by that deadline, nor did

plaintiff’s counsel contact defendant to seek an extension. Throughout April, defendant made several

fruitless attempts to contact plaintiff’s counsel, by mail and telephone. Finally, on April 26, 2007,

plaintiff’s counsel notified defendant, via facsimile, that he would serve his discovery responses by

April 27, 2007, at the latest. Having not received anything by April 30, 2007, defendant filed the instant

letter brief. 

On May 1, 2007, plaintiff filed a declaration with the Court stating that he “has now served

responses to all of Defendant’s recent third round of discovery request: Set Three of Defendant’s

request for Production of Documents and Set Three of Defendant’s Special Interrogatories.”

Defendant’s motion to compel is thus at least partially moot. However, it is unclear from plaintiff’s

Case 3:06-cv-03914-SI Document 32 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 2
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

This discovery dispute presented a rather simple issue. Defendant’s request for reimbursement

of nine hours of time spent preparing its motion therefore appears excessive. The Court grants

defendant its fees for one hour of preparing the motion, at Blane Mall’s hourly rate of $225.00, see Mall

Decl. ¶ 4, and for one hour of attempts to contact plaintiff’s counsel, at Paula Champagne’s hourly rate

of $475.00, see Champagne Decl. ¶ 8.

2

declaration whether he has responded to Set Two of the request for production of documents; he only

mentions Set Three. To the extent that plaintiff has yet to respond to request for production of

documents, Set Two, the Court hereby ORDERS him to do so, by May 21, 2007. 

Defendant also requests that the Court order plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant’s reasonable

attorneys’ fees incurred in resolving this discovery matter. The Court agrees with defendant that

sanctions are appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A). Other than the difficult living situation of

his client, plaintiff’s counsel has provided no explanation for his tardy response to the discovery

requests. More importantly, plaintiff’s counsel provides no explanation for why he did not contact

defendant to request more time to file his responses. The Court therefore ORDERS plaintiff’s counsel

to pay defendant $700.00 in attorneys’ fees.1

 [Docket No. 26]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15 , 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03914-SI Document 32 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 2