Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01969/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01969-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHEILA L. GIANELLI, an 

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO RECONSIDER

Plaintiff Sheila Gianelli (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court to 

reconsider (Doc. #19) the award of reasonable expenses to 

Defendant The Home Depot, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the amount of 

$1,012.50.1 For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request. 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On June 25, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to compel 

responses to its requests for production of documents and 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 

for October 1, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 5
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

requested the Court award sanctions (Doc. #12-1) under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The motion to compel was set for 

hearing on July 30, 2014 before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. 

Delaney. Plaintiff failed to file any response to the motion 

(Doc. #13). At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel apologized for 

his “lack of familiarity” with the practices of the Federal 

District Court in the Eastern District of California. Magistrate 

Judge Delaney took the matter under submission and subsequently 

ordered Plaintiff to submit unredacted copies of the documents 

requested by Defendant for in camera review along with a 

privilege log. 

In her Order (Doc. #17), Magistrate Judge Delaney denied the 

motion to compel further production of documents but awarded 

reasonable expenses to Defendant in the amount of $1012.50 to be 

payable by Plaintiff’s counsel. Magistrate Judge Delaney found 

Plaintiff belatedly served responsive documents and did not 

create a privilege log until ordered to do so by the Court. The 

order concluded: “Although the court does not approve of the 

dilatory conduct of plaintiff’s counsel . . . the court declines 

to deem the delayed production of responsive documents to be a 

waiver of the attorney client privilege.” Magistrate Judge 

Delaney ruled the reasonable expenses would still be awarded to 

Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) 

because Plaintiff did not serve responses to the request for 

production of documents until after the motion to compel was 

filed.

Plaintiff now requests this Court to reconsider this ruling. 

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 5
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

II. OPINION

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff and her counsel do not think that the award of 

expenses is appropriate “given the Magistrate’s denial of 

Defendant’s motion and the attendant surrounding circumstances.” 

Motion at p. 6. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (“Rule 37”) governs 

failures to make disclosures or to cooperate in discovery. Rule 

37 provides: 

If the motion [to compel] is granted—or if the 

disclosure or requested discovery is provided after 

the motion was filed—the court must, after giving an 

opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent 

whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or 

attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the 

movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the 

motion, including attorney’s fees. But the court must 

not order this payment if: 

(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting 

in good faith to obtain the disclosure or 

discovery without court action; 

(ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, 

response, or objection was substantially 

justified; or 

(iii) other circumstances make an award of 

expenses unjust. 

Rule 37(a)(5)(A). 

Plaintiff’s counsel argues that he did not file any response 

to the motion to compel for several reasons, all of which he 

argues amount to “excusable neglect,” satisfying the exceptions 

in Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(ii)-(iii): (1) Plaintiff’s counsel was “under 

the impression that an extension had been granted by Defendant’s 

counsel”; (2) Plaintiff “felt that the Motion was void ab 

initio”; (3) Plaintiff’s counsel was able to verbally rebut a 

discovery motion without having to formally respond in another 

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 5
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

federal court; and (4) Plaintiff’s counsel was “under the 

impression that the Motion would be withdrawn.” Motion at pp. 6-

7. Plaintiff requests reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 72 (“Rule 72”). Motion at p. 3. 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(c) provides 

that a party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s 

ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a District 

Court Judge specifically designating the ruling and the basis for 

the objection. “Local Rule 303(a) incorporates the ‘clearly 

erroneous’ or ‘contrary to law’ standard set forth in Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).” Green v. Chakotos, 1:11-CV-01611 

LJO, 2014 WL 4986793, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2014). Rule 72(a)

provides: “The district judge in the case must consider timely 

objections and modify or set aside any part of the [magistrate 

judge’s] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”

“‘A finding is “clearly erroneous” when although there is 

evidence to support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire 

evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been committed.’” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., 

Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 

622 (1993). Such review is “significantly deferential.” Id. at 

623. 

Plaintiff has failed to point to any legal error that would 

lead this court to believe that the Magistrate Judge's denial was 

“clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Despite Plaintiff’s 

misunderstandings, “impressions,” and experience in other courts, 

there is no basis for this Court to reconsider the award of 

expenses given that the requested discovery was not provided 

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 5
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

5

until after the motion to compel was filed. See Rule 

37(a)(5)(A). The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

B. Defendant’s Request for Further Sanctions

Defendant requests further sanctions in the amount of $1125 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (“§1927”) for “unreasonably and 

vexatiously” multiplying the proceedings and increasing the costs 

to Defendant. Opposition at p. 6. The Court denies Defendant’s 

request. Plaintiff’s counsel has not engaged in bad faith 

conduct warranting sanctions under §1927 by filing this motion. 

See In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Securities Litigation, 78 F.3d 431, 

436 (9th Cir. 1996). 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and DENIES Defendant’s 

request for further sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-01969-JAM-CKD Document 28 Filed 10/24/14 Page 5 of 5