Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00791/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00791-6/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 TO

SHORTEN TIME, SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULING AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD

NOT BE SANCTIONED

On March 29, 2007, Defendant United Parcel Service (“UPS”) filed a motion to compel

further responses to discovery from Plaintiff Vicky Medina (“Medina”) and a motion to shorten

time to hear the motion to compel.1

 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

Case 5:06-cv-00791-JW Document 26 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

Interrogatory No. [ ] to the extent it requests responses protected by the attorney-client privilege,

word product doctrine, FRE 412, and plaintiff’s right to privacy.” This was Medina’s entire

response to each and every interrogatory. 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. (Pfly 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. (Pfly Decl. Exh. G.) As of March 28, 2007, UPS

represents that it had received no response to the meet and confer attempts. (Pfly Decl. ¶ 14.) 

UPS asserts that hearing the motion to compel on normal time will allow insufficient

time to complete follow up discovery prior to the close of the discovery period.

Good Cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that UPS’s Motion to Shorten Time

is Granted and the following schedule shall apply:

1. Medina’s Opposition to the Motion shall be filed no later than April 10,

2007;

2. Absent further order of court, no reply brief will be filed and no hearing

will be held; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than April 10, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel shall

file a declaration showing cause why he should not pay the fees and costs incurred by Defendant

in filing the motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00791-JW Document 26 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 2