Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01522/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01522-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LEONARDO ESPINOZA and SERGIO

ROQUE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

C&C SECURITY PATROL, INC.

HERMENEGILDO COUGH, MARCEL

LOPEZ, GILBERT MARTINEZ,

Defendants. /

No. C08-01522 JW (HRL)

ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ORDER

SHORTENING TIME AND (2) DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

[Docket Nos. 77, 79, 80]

Defendants move for an order compelling plaintiffs to produce documents and to pay

attorney’s fees and expenses defendants incurred in connection with these motions. Defendants

also request that the matter be heard on shortened time. Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(2)

contemplates that Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 requests for production may be served in conjunction with

deposition notices, discovery in this matter closed months ago on October 19, 2009. 

Reportedly, the presiding judge will hold a pretrial conference on February 22, 2010, and trial is

set to begin on March 10, 2010. Nothing in defendants’ prior (belated) motion to compel

plaintiffs’ depositions suggested that defendants intended to propound an additional round of

document requests at this late stage of the litigation. (See Docket Nos. 63, 75). Nor did this

court’s December 14, 2009 authorize defendants to do so. This court takes a dim view of

defendants’ service of untimely document requests when no such discovery was

*E-FILED 01-12-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-01522-JW Document 81 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 3
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

permitted.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to compel and motion for sanctions are denied. Their

motion for an order shortening time is denied as moot.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 12, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-01522-JW Document 81 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5:08-cv-01522-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Adam Wang adamqwang@gmail.com, alpedersen@gmail.com, rosilenda@gmail.com 

Mark A. Hagopian mhagopian@mmker.com 

Sejal Thakkar sxt@mmker.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:08-cv-01522-JW Document 81 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 3