Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00791/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00791-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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 holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

VICKY M. MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,

Defendant. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C- 06-791 JW PVT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

COMPEL DISCOVERY AND

SANCTIONING PLAINTIFF’S

COUNSEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Vicky Medina (“Medina”) is a former employee of Defendant United Parcel

Service (“UPS”).1

 Medina has sued UPS alleging disability discrimination, violation of the

California Family Rights Act, Wrongful Termination, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional

Distress. On March 29, 2007, UPS filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery

from Medina and a Motion to Shorten Time to Hear the Motion to Compel. On April 3, 2007,

the Court granted the Motion to Shorten Time and Issued an Order to Show Cause Why

Plaintiff’s Counsel Should Not Be Sanctioned. The Order required Plaintiff’s counsel to file, no

later than April 10, 2007, an Opposition to the Motion to Compel and a Declaration showing

Case 5:06-cv-00791-JW Document 31 Filed 04/19/07 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

cause why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of the fees and costs incurred by Defendant

in bringing the Motion to Compel. To date, Plaintiff’s Counsel has not responded in any way to

the Order. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Discovery is Granted and Plaintiff’s counsel,

Richard Schramm, is hereby sanctioned in the amount of $4,500.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Discovery

On October 16, 2006, Medina served initial disclosures identifying a “Dr. Susan [LNU]

as a witness who will testify as to Medina’s emotional distress damages.” (Pfyl Decl. Exh. B.) 

On January 31, 2007, UPS served a First Set of Special Interrogatories seeking the name and

address of Dr. Susan and other mental healthcare providers as well as information about

Medina’s income subsequent to leaving employment with UPS. (Pfyl Decl. Exh. D.) On March

5, 2007, Medina served Responses to the interrogatories. (Pfyl Decl. Exh. E.) In response to

each interrogatory, Medina responded: “ Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. [ ] to the extent it

requests responses protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, FRE 412,

and plaintiff’s right to privacy.” Thus, Plaintiff provided no substantive responses. (Id.) On

March 9, 2007, UPS sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter specifically warning that

UPS would have no choice but to file a motion to compel if Medina did not supplement her

responses. (Pfyl Decl. Exh. F.) On March 26, 2007, UPS sent Plaintiff’s counsel a second meet

and confer letter, again warning of the need to file a motion to compel if Media did not

supplement the responses. (Pfyl Decl. Exh. G.) As of March 28, 2007, UPS had received no

response to the meet and confer attempts. (Pfyl Decl. ¶ 14.) 

Similarly, Plaintiff’s Counsel has not Opposed the Motion to Compel. In the absence of

any Opposition, Plaintiff has not shown that her objections as to attorney-client privilege or work

product immunity are sustainable. Indeed, the court can see no justification for these objections

in relation to requests for identification of Medina’s health care providers and information about

her earnings after her separation from UPS. Moreover, Medina has not shown why her assertion

of a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress does not outweigh her privacy interest in

information relating to her mental condition. Finally, Plaintiff’s objection as to Federal Rule of

Case 5:06-cv-00791-JW Document 31 Filed 04/19/07 Page 2 of 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

ORDER, page 3

Evidence 412 is unavailing as that section deals with admissibility of the sexual history of an

alleged victim of sexual assault. In short, Plaintiff, by failing to oppose the motion to compel

has failed to justify any of her objections to the discovery sought. Accordingly, the Motion to

Compel is Granted in Full.

B. Order to Show Cause

Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mr. Schramm, has not filed any response to the Order to Show

Cause. By failing to respond to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff’s Counsel has failed to show

why he should not be sanctioned in the amount Defendant expended in preparing the Motion to

Compel Discovery. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s boilerplate objections were inappropriate and are

patently insufficient. Moreover, Defendants’ meet and confer efforts were more than sufficient. 

Thus, Defendants have shown that Mr. Schramm should be sanctioned. Defendant has expended

$4,500 in preparing the Motion to Compel Discovery. (Pfyl Decl. ¶ 15.) Although Defendant

does not specify the number of hours expended or the hourly rate, the court finds this amount

reasonable. Accordingly, Mr. Schramm shall pay to UPS the sum of $4,500.

III. CONCLUSION

For the Foregoing Reasons, It Is Hereby Ordered that:

1. UPS’ Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery is GRANTED and, no

later than May 1, 2007, Plaintiff shall provide complete responses to UPS’

First Set of Special Interrogatories; and

2. No later than May 1, 2007, Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mr. Schramm, shall pay

to UPS, the amount of $4,500 to compensate UPS for the costs and fees it

incurred in filing the Motion to Compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00791-JW Document 31 Filed 04/19/07 Page 3 of 3