Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00779/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00779-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

* E-filed 4/16/08 *

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FRANK PALLADINI d/b/a LITTLE FRANK'S

BAR & GRILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF MILPITAS, et al.

Defendants. /

Case No. CV 06-00779 JW (HRL)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION

TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Docket No. 39

Frank Palladini, owner of Little Franks Bar and Grill, sues the City of Milpitas and

several police officers (individually and in their official capacity) alleging harassment,

discrimination and various civil rights violations. Defendants move to compel further responses

to certain discovery requests (including production of documents) and for attorney's fees. 

I. MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery requests on September 25, 2007. These

requests were originally due on October 25, 2007, but Defendants granted an extension to

December 15. On December 14, Plaintiff responded to the discovery requests, but Defendants

claim (and this court concurs) that many of these responses are "woefully inadequate, raise

Case 5:06-cv-00779-JW Document 64 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 7
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 See e.g., RFP No. 1 (seeking all documents supporting Plaintiff's allegation of

conspiracy to execute the policy causing the alleged unlawful acts), Plaintiff responded:

"[t]he cop watches show that defendants had been in plaintiff's establishment more than

once." This response serves no purpose other than to identify some type of document which

Plaintiff apparently feels is relevant to the RFP. Such a response is entirely inadequate. 

2

nonsensical and inappropriate objections, and are otherwise unresponsive." After failed

attempts at meeting and conferring, Defendants moved to compel on March 7, 2008. Plaintiff's

opposition brief was nearly a week late and sought more time to complete its discovery

obligations. 

At the hearing on this motion, counsel for Plaintiff acknowledged that he did not

appropriately respond to Defendant's meet and confer efforts. He also admitted that not only

were Plaintiff's discovery responses insufficient and incomplete, but they were prepared by an

unqualified non-lawyer staff member in his office. Counsel admitted he signed the responses. 

(One wonders whether he signed without reading them or read them and simply did not care

about their blatant inadequacy.) To date, Plaintiff has had nearly seven months to comply fully

and properly, but has not done so. 

A. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Parties responding to Requests for Production of Documents (RFP's) must respond to

each request with one of the following: an agreement to comply, a statement of inability to

comply, or a proper objection. 11 Schwarzer, et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: FED. CIV. PRO. BEFORE

TRIAL 11-263 (2008); FED.R.CIV.P. 34. None of Plaintiff's responses to these RFP's give any

indication of what documents Plaintiff has produced, is producing, or intends to produce. 

Rather, he makes vague references to documents which he apparently thinks are responsive to

the RFP posed.1

 Or, for several RFP responses, Palladini simply states, "documents pertaining

to this request are not available." 

Defendants are entitled to a clear statement by Plaintiff of the documents which have

been or will be produced pursuant to a particular RFP. An appropriate response under the

Federal Rules should make it clear that Plaintiff has produced all relevant, responsive

Case 5:06-cv-00779-JW Document 64 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 7
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 See e.g., Emmanuelle Interrogatory No. 2 (for interrogatory requesting description

for each time that Palladini contends Defendants performed unjustified police sweeps,

Plaintiff responded that one cop watch report on 4/25/06 noted "cop drove through parking

lot & flashed flashlight in cares [sic] that were parked at Little Franks").

3 See e.g., Lawson Interrogatory No. 5 (when asked to describe the political activities

by Plaintiff and his patrons which constituted "expressive activity," Plaintiff responded

"Medical records are being copied by Kaiser [sic] will have in 7 business days"). 

3

documents within his possession, custody, or control. Or, alternatively, if Plaintiff is unable to

produce known responsive documents, he should provide a full explanation. 

1) City of Milpitas's Request for Production of Documents: The motion is

GRANTED as to RFP's 1-4, 6-27, 29-38, 40, and 43-51. The motion is

DENIED with respect to RFP's 5, 28 and 39 because they are redundant. 

B. INTERROGATORIES

"Each interrogatory must be responded to 'separately and fully.' The response may be

either an answer or an objection. If an objection, the reasons for [it] must be stated." 

Schwarzer, et al., 11-263 (citing FED.R.CIV.P. 33(b)(3)). Most of Plaintiff's interrogatory

responses do little more than identify a particular event or document or refer generally to

Plaintiff's surveillance videos.2 Plaintiff responded to all interrogatories concerning damages by

referencing a spreadsheet that was never produced. None of these responses indicate whether

that single document comprises the entire universe of Plaintiff's relevant, responsive

information to the posed interrogatory. If Plaintiff prefers to produce documents as his

"answer" to interrogatories, then he must specifically identify such documents and clearly state

that they contain all of Palladini's relevant and responsive information on that topic. If the

documents do not tell the complete story, then he must tell it in the interrogatory answer. 

For six interrogatory responses, Plaintiff did not respond at all or responded with an

"N/A." In others, Plaintiff simply inserted his list of five witnesses with no further explanation,

when further explanation was appropriate and necessary for a complete response. In a few of

the more egregious examples, the document referred to was entirely unrelated to the

interrogatory.3

 Federal Rule 33 entitles Defendants to separate and full responses to their

Case 5:06-cv-00779-JW Document 64 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 7
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

interrogatories. It should go without saying that such responses must also be intelligible and

actually answer the questions asked.

1) Defendant Officer Emmanuelle' s Interrogatories: Plaintiff's motion is

GRANTED as to interrogatories 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 19. 

2) Defendant Charles Lawson's Interrogatories: Plaintiff's motion is

GRANTED as to interrogatories 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 23

and 25. 

3) Defendant Former Chief Nishisaka's Interrogatories: Plaintiff's motion is

GRANTED as to interrogatories 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 18 and 20-25. 

4) Defendant City of Milpitas's Interrogatories: The motion is GRANTED

as to interrogatories 3-10 and 13-25. 

C. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

 A response to a Request for Admission (RFA) may consist of either an answer or an

objection. Schwarzer, et al., 11-282. The answer must contain either "an admission, a denial or

a statement detailing why the answering party is unable to admit or deny the matter." Id.; See

also FED.R.CIV.P. 36(a)(3). The majority of Plaintiff's responses contain the phrase "Plaintiff

does not admit." Although this could possibly be construed as a denial, in other responses

Plaintiff uses the phrase "Plaintiff denies." What is the distinction Plaintiff intends? Because

the Federal Rules call for a clear admission or denial, Plaintiff must clarify these responses.

Furthermore, nearly all of the responses contained "boilerplate" objections. Proper

objections to RFA's include assertions that the request calls for privileged or irrelevant

information, or that the request is unduly burdensome or oppressive. Schwarzer, et al., 11-286 -

287. It is improper to object to RFA's with blanket objections or on the basis that the request is

ambiguous. Id; see also Marchand v. Mercy Med Ctr., 22 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 1994). Yet,

Case 5:06-cv-00779-JW Document 64 Filed 04/16/08 Page 4 of 7
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 See e.g., RFA No. 4 ("Plaintiff objects because it is vague, ambiguous and intended

to confuse.") 

5

 There are a few responses to which the court is mystified as to what the Plaintiff

was even trying to say. See, e.g., RFA No. 33 Plaintiff responded: "objects because it is

vague, ambiguous, any reasonable person being stopped and interjected, patrons business

would cause him to lose business [sic]"); see also RFA No. 43 Plaintiff responded, 

"Palladini objects ... It is doubtful that police have the manpower to send their cruises [sic]

and officials on a daily basis. It is Plaintiffs [sic] burden to show they do that to other

businesses other that [sic] those they want shut down."

5

this is precisely what Plaintiff has done for nearly every RFA.4

 Furthermore, on the court's

review, none of these RFA's warrant the "ambiguous" or the curious "intended to confuse"

objections asserted by Plaintiff. 

Many of Plaintiff's responses to Defendants' RFA's are unintelligible and lack a clear

indication of admission or denial. For example, in response to RFA No. 1 (seeking an

admission that Milpitas did not have a policy, custom or practice of maintaining an

unreasonable presence at the bar), Plaintiff said, "[t]he policy, customer [sic] practice of

maintaining a reasonable [sic] presence at plaintiff's establishment, was well documented." 

Setting aside the confusion arising from Plaintiff's lax proof-reading (does Palladini actually

think the police presence was reasonable?), the court might be willing to view the "customer"

word as a mere typographical error. However, in response to RFA No. 2 (seeking an admission

that Defendants did not maintain an unreasonable police presence at the bar), Plaintiff

responded with identical wording: "Refer to question number one, and is intended to confuse. 

The policy, customer [sic] practice of maintaining a reasonable [sic] presence at plaintiff's

establishment, was well documented." An occasional error is one thing, but when those errors

permeate an entire body of discovery responses rendering many unintelligible, the court cannot

overlook it.5 More is required of Plaintiff (and his counsel) under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

1) City of Milpitas's Requests for Admissions: Plaintiff's motion is

GRANTED as to RFA's 1-17, 19, 21-27, 29-35, and 38-44. The motion

is DENIED with respect to RFA's 18, 20, 28, and 36 because Plaintiff did

adequately respond. 

Case 5:06-cv-00779-JW Document 64 Filed 04/16/08 Page 5 of 7
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

6

II. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

Defendants seek attorney's fees for Plaintiff's discovery failures. FED.R.CIV.P. 

37(a)(4)(A). Under these circumstances, an award of reasonable attorney's fees is appropriate

and will be GRANTED. Defendants are directed to promptly file a declaration describing the

time spent in attempting to meet and confer and in bringing this motion to compel. Plaintiff

may have one week to file any objections to this declaration. An order specifying the amount of

the award will follow thereafter. 

ORDER

By May 5, 2008, Plaintiff shall produce all responsive documents and serve full and

complete responses. If Plaintiff's compliance with this order fails to measure up to what is

reasonably required, the court will seriously consider evidentiary sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/16/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-00779-JW Document 64 Filed 04/16/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

5:06-cv-779 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

James Michael Barrett jb@jamesbarrettlaw.com 

Kimberly E. Colwell kcolwell@meyersnave.com, calendardept@meyersnave.com,

elabella@meyersnave.com 

Tricia L. Hynes thynes@meyersnave.com, calendardept@meyersnave.com,

kyanaga@meyersnave.com 

Montgomery Scott Pisano mpisano@plg1.com 

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

Dated: 4/16/08 

 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-00779-JW Document 64 Filed 04/16/08 Page 7 of 7