Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01951/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01951-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:2601 FMLA: Family and Medical Leave Act (Findings and Purposes)

---

1

18-cv-1951-GPC-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL HECKO,

Plaintiff, 

v.

RUTH'S CHRIS HOSPITALITY 

GROUP INC.,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 18-cv-1951-GPC-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING DEFENDANT'S 

INITIAL DISCLOSURES 

[ECF NO. 39]

This Joint Motion presents Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against 

Defendant for alleged violations of Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P., filed on June 18, 

2019. (ECF No. 39). Specifically, Plaintiff wants Defendant to be sanctioned 

for failing to include in its initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) the

“Elite Binder” used by Defendant’s managers as a resource for handling 

certain duties; scheduling and staffing documents for the Del Mar restaurant 

from July 25, 2017, to November 1, 2017; and documents reflecting written 

performance warnings regarding Plaintiff allegedly written by Plaintiff’s 

manager, Ms. West. Plaintiff also seeks to re-depose certain witnesses at 

Defendant’s expense. 

Case 3:18-cv-01951-GPC-MDD Document 41 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18-cv-1951-GPC-MDD

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

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires each party to provide to the other parties, 

without a discovery request, “a copy – or a description by category and 

location - of all documents that the disclosing party has in its possession, 

custody or subject to its control and may use to support its claims or 

defenses.” Rule 26(e) requires a party who has made a disclosure under Rule 

26(a) to supplement its disclosure 

in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material 

respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if 

the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been 

made known to the other parties during the discovery process....

Rule 26(e)(1)(A). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(g) requires that every disclosure under Rule 

26(a)(1) be signed by an attorney of record. By signing, the attorney is 

certifying that to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information and belief 

formed after a reasonable inquiry, that the disclosure is complete at the time 

it was made. Rule 26(g)(1)(A). Sanctions may be imposed upon the signer 

who violates this rule without substantial justification. Rule 26(g)(3). 

Finally, Rule 37(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides for sanctions for failing to 

disclose or supplement under Rule 26(a) or (e) unless the failure is 

substantially justified or harmless. Rule 37(c)(1).

DISCUSSION

In its initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), Defendant identified

categories of documents that it may use to support its claims and defenses. 

The categories included “Plaintiff’s personnel file and other personnel-related 

documents regarding Plaintiff and his performance” and “documents relating 

Case 3:18-cv-01951-GPC-MDD Document 41 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18-cv-1951-GPC-MDD

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

to Plaintiff’s job duties.” (ECF No. 39-2 at 8).1 

A. Written and Verbal Performance Warnings

Christina West, Plaintiff’s last immediate supervisor, testified in 

deposition that she issued a verbal and written warning to Plaintiff regarding 

his performance and that the verbal warning was memorialized in a writing. 

Defendant asserts that despite several in-depth searches, those writings 

cannot be located. Plaintiff provides no evidence to suggest that Defendant 

had and destroyed these documents in anticipation of or during this 

litigation. 

Plaintiff’s position here is hard to fathom. These documents, if they 

existed, likely would benefit Defendant and harm Plaintiff. As it stands, the 

fact that Defendant cannot produce documentary support for a manager who

has claimed that she did write up Plaintiff for deficient performance is even 

better for Plaintiff. Defendant cannot produce documents that are not within 

its possession, custody or control, despite reasonable efforts to locate them. 

No sanction will issue on this basis. 

B. Staffing/Scheduling Records for Del Mar Restaurant

Plaintiff again has the Court scratching his head. On May 8, 2019, in a 

Joint Motion, Plaintiff sought to compel Defendant to respond to 

interrogatories and requests for production calling for Defendant to disclose 

the number of employees, including managers, employed by Defendant in 

southern California as of the time of Plaintiff’s termination. (ECF No. 22). 

On May 17, 2019, the Court held a hearing and granted, in part, Plaintiff’s 

motion and ordered Defendant to disclose management staffing levels for its 

 

1 The Court will refer to pagination supplied by CM/ECF rather than original pagination 

throughout.

Case 3:18-cv-01951-GPC-MDD Document 41 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18-cv-1951-GPC-MDD

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

restaurants in San Diego County and for its Irvine restaurant for the period

encompassing July 2017 through October 2017. (ECF No. 31 at 6-8). 

Defendant was required to produce the required responses no later than 30 

days following the hearing. Plaintiff did not assert, in its moving papers nor 

at the hearing, that Defendant was under an obligation to produce this 

information pursuant to its initial disclosures. To the extent Plaintiff now 

challenges Defendant for not disclosing scheduling information, there is no 

evidence that Plaintiff requested it. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff raised it 

for the first time on May 29, 2019, and Defendant agreed to produce it. (ECF 

No. 39 at 11). 

Defendant asserts that at the time of its initial disclosures, and even 

now, that these are not documents that it may use at trial. Consequently, 

there is no Rule 26 violation here. 

C. Elite Binder

Similarly, it is not apparent that Defendant intends to use or may use 

any version of the Elite Binder to support its claims or defenses. The fact 

that Defendant’s initial disclosures provide that Defendant may use 

documents related to Plaintiff’s job duties did not require Defendant to 

produce all documents regarding Plaintiff’s job duties without a discovery 

request. Defendant satisfied its obligation under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) by 

providing a categorical description. Only when and if Defendant decides that 

it may use the Elite Binder in support of a claim or defense must Defendant 

disclose it; except that it has already become known through the discovery 

process. See Rule 26(e)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff questioned a witness using a version of the Elite Binder that 

may have been current when Plaintiff was employed by Defendant. 

Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant should have produced, as part of its 

Case 3:18-cv-01951-GPC-MDD Document 41 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18-cv-1951-GPC-MDD

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

initial disclosures, a current version of that manual is specious. And, a 

current version, according to Defendant, has been provided to Plaintiff. 

SANCTIONS

Plaintiff’s counsel is correct that at the discovery hearing on May 17, 

2019, the Court put the parties on notice that if another unjustified discovery 

dispute was brought to the Court, sanctions likely would issue. (ECF No. 31 

at 3). Plaintiff brought this motion alleging that Defendant failed to make 

required disclosures, to compel the re-deposition of certain witnesses and for 

sanctions. Had Plaintiff been successful, Defendant would have faced 

sanctions under Rule 37(a)(5) or under Rule 37(c)(1). Rule 37(c)(1) comes into 

play when a party attempts to use a witness or evidence that it was required 

to disclose but did not. This is not that scenario. What we have here is a 

motion to compel and for sanctions under Rule 37(a)(3)(A). 

When a motion to compel under this rule is denied, the Court is 

required to consider sanctions against the party who brought the motion to 

compel. Rule 37(a)(5)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that the Court,

must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant, 

the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party ... who 

opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing 

the motion, including attorney’s fees. But the Court must not 

order this payment if the motion is substantially justified or other 

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. 

The Court cannot say, as a matter of law, that this motion was 

substantially justified or that an award of expenses would be unjust. 

Accordingly, sanctions must be considered.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

As presented in this Joint Motion, Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for

sanctions is DENIED. The Court ORDERS:

Case 3:18-cv-01951-GPC-MDD Document 41 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18-cv-1951-GPC-MDD

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

1. Defendant may move the Court for recovery of its reasonable costs 

and attorney’s fees incurred in defending this motion. Such motion 

is to be filed no later than July 5, 2019. 

2. Plaintiff may respond to any such motion brought by Defendant no 

later than July 12, 2019. After receipt of the briefing papers, the 

Court will determine whether to have a hearing or rule on the 

papers. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01951-GPC-MDD Document 41 Filed 06/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6