Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00876/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00876-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JARED GUTIERREZ, DIEGO GARCIA, 

ARTURO GARDUNO, ADOLFO ZUNIGA, 

JESSICA CAMACHO AND ANTONIO 

ROLDAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ESMERALDA BRISENO-GUZMAN dba 

PEPE’S FOODS AND PEPE’S FOODS, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-00876-HRL

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY 

REPORT

Re: Dkt. No. 18

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling defendants to answer plaintiffs’ interrogatories, 

requests for admission, and document requests, as well as to produce responsive documents. 

Defendants’ discovery responses were due on October 5, 2015, and plaintiffs say that defendants 

have failed to respond. This court is told that defendants did not participate in the preparation of a 

joint discovery report as required by the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery 

Disputes. Nor have they responded to the instant discovery report from plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ request is granted.1 Defendants shall serve their answers to plaintiffs’ discovery 

requests and produce responsive documents no later than November 23, 2015. Defendants

 

1

The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

Case 5:15-cv-00876-HRL Document 20 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

having failed to timely respond to the requests, any objections they might have asserted are 

waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 

1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests 

within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00876-HRL Document 20 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:15-cv-00876-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Dania Marie Alvarenga Dania@alvarengalaw.com, info2@alvarengalaw.com

James Dal Bon jdb@wagedefenders.com, ba@wagedefenders.com

Stephen Arthur Horner horner.steve@gmail.com

Case 5:15-cv-00876-HRL Document 20 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 3