Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00353/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00353-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e-2ot Job Discrimination (other)

---

FILED 1

2

17 APR 27 PH 2? 30

3 CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT Of CALIFORNIA

4

BY: K\s

DEPUTY 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DARRYL A. EDGE, Case No.: 15cv353-WQH(KSC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE JOINT MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY

DISPUTE (PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS

FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS)

13 v.

14 POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED

STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 15

Defendant. 16

[Doc. No. 41]

17

18 Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Determination ofDiscovery Dispute filed by

plaintiff [Doc. No. 41] and defendant’s Opposition thereto [Doc. No. 42]. In the Joint

Motion, plaintiffseeks an order compelling defendant to provide further responses to his

requests for production of documents. [Doc. No. 41, at pp. 1-10.] For the reasons

outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiffs request for an order compelling

defendant to provide further responses to his document requests must be DENIED.

Background

Plaintiffis proceeding in this'actionpro se. [Doc. Nos. 29, 30.] The Complaint

includes three causes of action for: (1) racial discrimination in violation ofTitle VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e etseq.; (2) retaliation for engaging in

protected activities in violation ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

1 ww-woHrKsr:i

Case 3:15-cv-00353-WQH-KSC Document 44 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
§ 2000e etseq.; and (3) hostile work environment in violation ofTitle VII ofthe Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 1.] According to the

Complaint, plaintiffworked for defendant “without incident” from 1981 to 2011. [Doc.

No. 1, at p. 5.] From May 2010 to May 2011, plaintiff held the position ofVehicle

Maintenance Program Analyst (VMPA) (EAS-23) for the Pacific Area at a Processing

and Distribution Center in San Diego. [Doc. No. 1, at p. 5.] However, in 2011, plaintiff

alleges that defendant discriminated against him because of his race when: (1) he was

not selected for the position ofMaintenance Management Specialist (EAS-23) on or

about July 11, 2011; (2) he was not selected for the position ofManager, Maintenance

Operations (EAS-26) in May of 2011; (3) he was not selected for the position of

Manager, Maintenance Operations (EAS-26) on or about July 11, 2011; and (4) he was

demoted to the position ofManager, Maintenance (EAS-19) after July 11, 2011. [Doc.

No. 1, atp. 5.]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 Discussion

15 A. Timeliness.

The Scheduling Order in this case states in part as follows: “All discovery motions

must be filed within 45 days ofthe service of an objection, answer, or response which

become the subject of a dispute..[Doc. No. 33, at p. 2.] See also Chambers’ Rule

V(A). Plaintiffserved defendant with his document requests on October 14,2016. [Doc.

No. 42, at p. 2.] Defendant served plaintiffwith its responses on November 14, 2016.

[Doc. No. 42, at p. 2-3.] Plaintiff did not file the Joint Motion until January 27, 2017,

long after the 45-day deadline had expired. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 3.] Therefore, plaintiffs

Motion is DENIED as untimely.

Meet and Confer Requirement.

The Scheduling Order in this case states in part as follows: “All discovery motions

must be filed ... only after counsel have met and conferred and have reached an impasse

with regard to the particular issue.” [Doc. No. 33, at p. 2.] Local Rule 26.1(a) also states

that: “The court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed.R.Civ.P.,

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 B.

25

26

27

28

2

Case 3:15-cv-00353-WQH-KSC Document 44 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues.”

CivLR 26.1(a). Chambers’ Rules further state that: “Counsel must meet and confer on

all issues before contacting the Court. If counsel are located in the same district, the meet

and confer must be in person....” Chambers’ Rule V(B). In addition, discovery

motions must be “accompanied by a declaration from lead trial counsel of each party to

the dispute establishing compliance with the meet and confer requirements.” Chambers’

Rule V(D).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Here, plaintiff did not meet and confer with defense counsel before filing his Joint

Motion and did not file a declaration with the Joint Motion stating compliance with the

meet and confer requirements. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 3; Doc. No. 41.] Nor did plaintiff

notify defense counsel that he intended to file his Joint Motion. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 3.]

Therefore, plaintiffs Motion is DENIED for failure to meet and confer.

C. Format ofPlaintiffs “Joint Motion. ”

Chambers’ Rule V(D) states that: “A party seeking to bring a discovery dispute

before the Court must provide the opposing party a reasonable opportunity to contribute

to the joint motion.” Chambers’ Rule V(D). Here, plaintiff did not notify defense

counsel that he intended to seek the Court’s assistance in resolving a discovery dispute

and did not give defense counsel an opportunity to contribute to his Joint Motion before

filing it with the Court. [Doc. No. 42, at p. 3.] In other words, plaintiffs “Joint Motion”

is not actually a “Joint Motion,” because plaintiff did not give defendant an opportunity

to include any points and authorities or to explain the reasons for its objections to

plaintiffs document requests. [Doc. No. 41.] Accordingly, plaintiffs Joint Motion is

DENIED for failure to follow Chambers Rule V(D), which requires that both parties must

have an opportunity to contribute to a “Joint Motion.” Chambers Rule V(D).

D. Documents Requested.

Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 26 provides as follows: “Parties may obtain

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or

defense and proportional to the needs ofthe case, considering the importance ofthe

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

i<ip.v353-wnHncsn

Case 3:15-cv-00353-WQH-KSC Document 44 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to

relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance ofthe discovery in resolving

the issues, and whether the burden or expense ofthe proposed discovery outweighs its

likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in

evidence to be discoverable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

All ofplaintiffs document requests seek materials that were “used” or

“referenced” during an alleged reduction in force in the year 2011. [Doc. No. 41, at pp.

1-10.] Plaintiff argues in the Joint Motion that the documents he has requested are

“directly relevant to the case,” because they will show that defendant failed to follow

applicable procedures. [Doc. No. 41, at pp. 1-10.] However, plaintiff does not explain

how the alleged reduction in force in 2011 relates to the allegations in his Complaint or to

the defenses raised in defendant’s Answer.

Defendant argues that the documents plaintiffhas requested are not relevant,

because plaintiffis not challenging a 2011 reduction in force in his Complaint. [Doc. No.

42, at p. 4.] Rather, he is challenging his “non-selection for three positions and an

alleged demotion.” [Doc. No. 42, at p. 4.] Based on a review ofthe Complaint, the

Court agrees with defendant that documents “used” or “referenced” in a 2011 reduction

in force do not have any obvious relevance to the allegations in plaintiffs Complaint.

[Doc. No. 1, at pp. 1-17.] Nor does it appear from a review ofthe Answer, that defendant

is relying on a defense related to a reduction in force in 2011. [Doc. No. 8, at pp. 1-14.]

Therefore, without more, the Court can only conclude that plaintiffs document requests

seek disclosure ofmaterials that do not meet the relevance standard ofRule 26(b)(1).

Accordingly, plaintiffs Joint Motion is also DENIED for this reason.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 III

25 III

26 III

III 27

III 28

4

1 Sr.v'W-WOHfKSn

Case 3:15-cv-00353-WQH-KSC Document 44 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
1 Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request in the

Joint Motion for an order compelling defendant to provide further responses to his

document requests is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2017

2

3

4

5

6

7

Hon. Karen S. Crawford

United States Magistrate Judge 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

1 VVW-WOHfKSr.'l

Case 3:15-cv-00353-WQH-KSC Document 44 Filed 04/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5