Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01306/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01306-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELAINE CHAO, Secretary of Labor, )

United States Department of Labor, )

) 2:05-cv-1306-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

JASMINE HALL CARE HOMES, INC., a )

corporation; HALL CARE HOMES, )

INC.; a corporation, GEORGE K. )

HALL, an individual; and ESTELA )

HALL, an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants move for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure (“FRCP”) 16(f) because Plaintiff issued a subpoena duces

tecum after the discovery completion date prescribed in the FRCP

Scheduling Order. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

DISCUSSION

The FRCP Scheduling Order prescribes that all discovery in

this action was to be completed by April 2, 2007. Plaintiff issued a

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 83 Filed 07/23/07 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

Parties are generally encouraged to meet and confer to resolve 1

discovery disputes before filing motions with the court. See, e.g.,

E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251(b) (concerning the expectation that counsel meet

and confer regarding a discovery dispute, recognizing that such meetings

may resolve the parties’ dispute; FRCP 37(a)(2)(A) (providing that a

motion to compel disclosure or discovery “must include a certification

that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with

the [opposing] party . . . .”).

2

subpoena duces tecum to Alta California Regional Center (“Alta”) on

May 8, 2007. (Mot. at 4:12-13; December 20, 2006 Order at 2.) 

Accordingly, Defendants request the following sanctions: (1) that

Plaintiff be ordered “to comply with the Court’s December 20, 2006

Order” and (2) that Defendants be awarded their reasonable expenses

incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s noncompliance with the discovery

completion date. (Mot. at 2.) 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ motion for sanctions is

unnecessary because “Plaintiff reacted immediately and responsively to

all concerns expressed by Defendants about the subject subpoena, well

before Defendants filed their Motion.” (Opp’n at 4.) Plaintiff’s

counsel declares that before Defendants filed their motion on June 11,

2007, she had already requested Alta to halt the production of

documents and had refrained from using or disclosing any discovery

already received in response to the subpoena. (Jan M. Coplick Decl.

(“Coplick Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-7, 9; Exs. A, B, C.) Further, before

Defendants filed their sanction motion on June 11, Plaintiff’s counsel

had contacted Defendants for the purpose of trying to resolve this

dispute amicably. (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. B.) 1

Defendants have not shown why a declaration should issue

ordering Plaintiff to comply with the FRCP Scheduling Order. Nor have

Defendants shown that the expenses incurred with regard to their June

11 motion are reasonable under Rule 16(f) since Plaintiff evinced

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 83 Filed 07/23/07 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

3

willingness to amicably resolve the discovery dispute before

Defendants filed their June 11 motion. 

Defendants also request expenses and/or sanctions under FRCP

16(f) for the opposition they filed against Plaintiff’s March 23, 2007

motion to amend the Scheduling Order, which Plaintiff later withdrew. 

(Mot. at 6.) But Defendants do not explain how these filings violated

the FRCP 16 Scheduling Order. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated, Defendants’ motion is denied.

Dated: July 23, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01306-GEB-KJN Document 83 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 3