Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01140/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01140-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MERRILL OXFORD, CASE NO. CV F 05-1140 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO

COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND

vs. INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

(Docs. 11, 12.)

SARA LEE BAKERY COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this wrongful termination and related action, defendant Sara Lee Bakery Company (“Sara

Lee”) seeks plaintiff Merrill Oxford’s (“Mr. Oxford’s”) F.R.Civ.P. 26(a) initial disclosures and

interrogatory responses and to impose a $1,240 sanction on Mr. Oxford and/or his counsel. This Court

considered Sara Lee’s motions to compel on the record and without oral argument or the May 26, 2006

hearing, which this Court vacates. See Local Rule 78-230(h). For the reasons discussed below, this

Court ORDERS Mr. Oxford and his counsel, no later than June 2, 2006, to:

1. SERVE complete F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures and complete, straightforward

answers, without objections, to Sara Lee’s interrogatories, served on October 24, 2005;

and

2. PAY jointly a $620 sanction to Sara Lee for failure to provide initial disclosures and

interrogatory responses. 

Case 1:05-cv-01140-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 4
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

BACKGROUND

Sara Lee employed Mr. Oxford as a route sales representative until July 2, 2003. On June 20,

2005, Mr. Oxford filed a wrongful termination and related action against Sara Lee in Fresno County

Superior Court, and Sara Lee removed the action to this Court. On November 21, 2005, Sara Lee

served its F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures on Mr. Oxford. Defense counsel sent a January 19,

2006 letter to Mr. Oxford’s counsel to request Mr. Oxford’s initial disclosures. On January 20, 2006,

Sara Lee served Mr. Oxford by mail its first set of interrogatories, which comprise 20 interrogatories

seeking facts, witnesses and documents to support Mr. Oxford’s claims.

Mr. Oxford failed to serve his initial disclosures and responses to Sara Lee’s interrogatories.

Defense counsel’s March 2, 2006 letter to Mr. Oxford’s counsel noted that Mr. Oxford had waived

objections with his failure to respond to the interrogatories and requested full and complete responses

no later than March 9, 2006. After Mr. Oxford’s counsel failed to respond, defense counsel sent Mr.

Oxford’s counsel a March 23, 2006 letter to request complete responses no later than March 30, 2006.

After receiving no responses, Sara Lee filed its motions to compel initial disclosures and

responses to interrogatories on April 14, 2006. In his opposition declaration, Mr. Oxford’s counsel

admits that the discovery responses are “outstanding,” that he lacks “a legal basis on which to object to

defendant’s motion,” and that Sara Lee is “entitled to responses.”

DISCUSSION

Compelling Initial Disclosures And Discovery Responses

F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) requires parties to disclose supportive witnesses and documents, damages

computations and insurance information “without awaiting a discovery request” at or within 14 days

after the scheduling conference.

F.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(A) authorizes a motion to compel initial disclosures:

If a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a), any other party may

move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions. The motion must include a

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

party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action.

F.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2)(B) empowers a propounding party to bring a motion to compel interrogatory

responses:

Case 1:05-cv-01140-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 4
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

If . . . a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, . . . the

discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer . . . . The motion must

include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer

with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the

information or material without court action.

“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required

constitutes a waiver of any objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468,

1473 (9 Cir. 1992) (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9 Cir. 1981)). The failure to th th

respond to interrogatories “may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable

unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for protective order.” F.R.Civ.P. 37(d). An “evasive

or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or

respond.” F.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3).

Mr. Oxford has inexcusably failed to provide his initial disclosures given the were due no later

than December 20, 2005. Mr. Oxford and his counsel have failed to provide responses to Sara Lee’s

routine interrogatories and good faith requests for responses. Mr. Oxford’s counsel acknowledged that

discovery responses are overdue, that Sara Lee is entitled to discovery responses, and that there are no

grounds to object to the information sought by Sara Lee. Mr. Oxford’s counsel fails to explain failure

to respond and blatant disregard of Sara Lee’s legitimate discovery. Sara Lee is entitled, without

objections, to Mr. Oxford’s initial disclosures and complete, straightforward answers, to the

interrogatories. 

Sanctions

Sara Lee requests a sanction of $1,240 (eight hours multiplied by $155 hourly rate) for legal

expenses to pursue its motions to compel Mr. Oxford’s initial disclosures and interrogatory responses.

F.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) authorizes sanctions for failure to make initial disclosures:

A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required

by Rule 26(a) . . . is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at

a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed. In

addition to or in lieu of this sanction, the court, on motion and after affording an

opportunity to be heard, may impose other appropriate sanctions. In addition to requiring

payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, these

sanctions may include any of the sanctions authorized under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), (B), and

(C) and may include informing the jury of the failure to make the disclosure.

Moreover, if a motion to compel interrogatory responses is granted, “the court shall, after

Case 1:05-cv-01140-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 05/22/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion or the

party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable

expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees, unless the court finds that the motion

was filed without the movant’s first making a good faith effort to obtain the . . . discovery without court

action . . . or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” F.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A).

Mr. Oxford and his counsel ignored Sara Lee’s attempts to obtain initial disclosures and

interrogatory responses without this Court’s order to compel. No circumstances appear to render unjust

an award of Sara Lee’s expenses to pursue their motions to compel. Although Sara Lee’s attorney

billing rates are reasonable, questions arise as to the devotion of eight hours of attorney time to prepare

the simple papers. Such time appears excessive given that such tasks could have been accomplished in

four hours. As such, a $620 sanction is appropriate.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court ORDERS Mr. Oxford and his counsel, no later than

June 2, 2006, to:

1. SERVE complete F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures and complete, straightforward

answers, without objections, to Sara Lee’s interrogatories, served on October 24, 2005;

and

2. PAY jointly a $620 sanction to Sara Lee for failure to provide initial disclosures and

interrogatory responses.

This Court VACATES the May 26, 2006 hearing on Sara Lee’s motions to compel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01140-AWI-LJO Document 15 Filed 05/22/06 Page 4 of 4