Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01036/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01036-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABUCAR NUNOW ABIKAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BRISTOL BAY NATIVE 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION REGARDING 

PLAINTIFFS’ FILINGS [ECF No. 

51]; and

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN 

UNTIMELY MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION [ECF No. 53]

I. Background

According to the current scheduling order set by Magistrate Judge Schopler in this 

case, Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a motion for class certification was July 27, 2018. (ECF 

No. 33 at 2.) That day, Plaintiffs’ counsel Attorney Marilynn Mika Spencer filed a 

defective motion. (ECF Nos. 49, 50.) The motion is not complete. In at least one page, 

one finds counsel’s notes to herself. (See ECF No. 49 at 8.) Supposedly attached to the 

motion is a “compendium of evidence” containing declarations of 48 individuals; instead, 

one finds only a list of those individuals’ names. (See ECF Nos. 49-1, 50.) On July 30, 

2018, Attorney Spencer called this Court’s chambers and asserted that her defective filing 

was the result of her using the wrong web browser. Plaintiff has now filed a motion for 

Case 3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS Document 58 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS

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

leave to file an untimely motion (ECF No. 53), and has also filed a corrected version of 

the motion for class certification (ECF No. 55).

In the motion for leave to file the corrected class certification motion, Attorney 

Spencer offers an explanation for her defective filings. She asserts that between 11:15 

p.m. and 11:30 p.m. on July 27, she began to upload the motion and its exhibits, but she 

received an error message. (ECF No. 53-2 at 3–4.) After trying a different browser, 

Attorney Spencer had no better luck. (Id. at 4.) Seeing that the deadline was 

approaching, she “decided to upload what she could, then try to upload the Compendium 

separately or in parts.” (Id.) In doing so, she uploaded “incorrect documents: a draft of 

the notice attached to a draft of the memorandum, and the table of contents for the 

compendium.” (Id.) According to Attorney Spencer, she did not realize that her filings 

were defective until July 30, when she called the Court’s CM/ECF help desk. (Id. at 4–

5.)

This is not the first time Attorney Spencer has “mistakenly” filed a draft filing near 

a deadline set by this Court. After Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and strike 

Plaintiffs’ complaint (ECF No. 7), the Court set a response deadline of November 24, 

2017 (ECF No. 8). On the afternoon of November 22, Attorney Spencer called this 

Court’s chambers suggesting that she might file a motion to extend Plaintiffs’ response 

deadline. No such motion was filed. Rather, at 11:54 p.m. on November 24, Attorney 

Spencer filed a document purported to be a response to Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 

10.) The document Attorney Spencer filed, however, was an incomplete draft. The 

following Monday, Attorney Spencer filed a completed version of the opposition. (ECF 

Nos. 11–13.) Three days later, she filed a motion for leave to file her untimely corrected 

response. (ECF No. 15.) In that motion, Attorney Spencer claimed that on the evening 

of November 24 she had trouble uploading her response because she was unable to find 

the hyperlink responsible for uploading documents. Shortly before midnight, the 

previously hidden link returned on her browser, permitting her to upload a document. 

(ECF No. 15-2 ¶ 12.) In a hurry to file her response timely, however, Attorney Spencer 

Case 3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS Document 58 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS

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

claimed she accidentally filed a “much earlier draft.” (Id.) When she realized this 

mistake a few minutes later, the link to upload a document was, according to Attorney 

Spencer, nowhere to be found. (Id.) The Court granted the motion for leave to file her

untimely filing. (ECF No. 16.)

Another similar incident occurred in May 2018. After several hiccups in the case 

management conference process—resulting at least in part from what appears to be 

Plaintiffs’ failure to make initial disclosures (see ECF No. 33 at 1 (noting Plaintiffs had 

not yet made initial disclosures))—Judge Schopler issued a scheduling order setting the 

deadline for any motion to amend Plaintiffs’ complaint at May 18, 2018. (Id.) At 

midnight on the evening of May 18, Attorney Spencer filed a motion to amend the 

complaint. (ECF No. 34.) She filed her proposed Second Amended Complaint in the 

early morning of May 19. (ECF No. 35.) Contrary to this Court’s rules, Attorney 

Spencer failed to (1) obtain a hearing date on this motion, and (2) file a redline version of 

the proposed Second Amended Complaint demonstrating the differences between the 

operative complaint and the proposed version. On May 22, Attorney Spencer refiled her 

motion after obtaining a hearing date. (ECF No. 37.) She did not file the redlined 

version of the Second Amended Complaint until July 7. (ECF No. 44.) In denying 

Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice, the Court acknowledged Attorney Spencer’s 

“pattern of conduct” relating to her failing to meet Court-ordered deadlines, and it warned 

that the Court “is unlikely to grant a last-minute (or untimely) request to extend the 

deadline for filing any further motion to amend the complaint.” (ECF No. 45 at 9.)

Attorney Spencer has also exceeded basic procedural deadlines. She filed the 

original complaint in this case on May 18, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) A summons was issued to 

Plaintiffs the next day. (ECF No. 2.) Nonetheless, Attorney Spencer failed to serve 

Defendants for four months, well beyond the deadline set by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m). On September 21, the Court issued an order to show cause why it 

should not dismiss the case. (ECF No. 3.) It was not until October 4, 2017, that Attorney 

Spencer began the process of litigating this case. (ECF No. 4.)

Case 3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS Document 58 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS

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

According to Defendants, Plaintiffs have also engaged in improper discovery

conduct. Despite the parties’ holding their Rule 26(f) conference on February 9, 2018, 

Plaintiffs did not serve Defendants with written discovery requests until June 26, when 

Plaintiffs issued 73 requests for production. (ECF No. 51-1 at 10.) This was in violation 

of Judge Schopler’s document request limit, which was 50. (ECF No. 33 at 3.) Plaintiffs 

amended their request to conform to that limitation on June 27.1 (ECF No. 51-1 at 10.)

II. Discussion

As a result of these issues, Defendants have filed a motion seeking several forms of 

relief. (ECF No. 51.) First, they ask that the Court reject Plaintiffs’ corrected motion for 

class certification because it is untimely. Second, they ask that the Court either reject the 

timely filed draft version of the motion or consider it only as filed. Third, Defendants ask 

the Court to continue the hearing date on the motion for class certification, hold a 

scheduling conference to establish a new briefing schedule, and expand the 20-

depositions limitation set by Judge Schopler.

With respect to the first two requests, the Court finds it inappropriate to prevent 

Plaintiffs from offering a fully developed motion for class certification. The few-days 

delay in receiving Plaintiffs’ corrected motion for class certification has not prejudiced 

Defendants, particularly if the Court agrees to extend the briefing and hearing schedule 

on the motion (which, as discussed below, the Court finds appropriate). While the Court 

understands Defendants’ frustration with the issued described above, Defendants have 

not identified how those issues have impacted their ability to defend this case.

It should be noted, however, that Attorney Spencer’s conduct in this litigation has 

reached the point of unprofessional. The Court understands that computer issues occur. 

But after experiencing her first computer issue, Attorney Spencer should have been 

 

1 Defendants also note that Plaintiffs did not notice any depositions of Defendants’ witnesses prior to 

filing the motion for class certification. (Id. at 11.) The Court does not view this as improper. Plaintiffs 

were under no obligation to depose Defendants’ witnesses before filing their motion for class

certification.

Case 3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS Document 58 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS

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

prepared to file future documents with time to spare in case she experienced the same 

problem. Moreover, the fact that Attorney Spencer claims to have mistakenly filed a 

draft while experiencing computer issues for a second time in this case makes her excuses 

less believable. While Attorney Spencer’s issues with deadlines have inconvenienced the 

Court and Defendants, it is ultimately her clients who have been harmed the most. Each 

time she misses a deadline or mistakenly files the wrong document, her clients’ 

entitlement to speedy resolution of their legal claims are harmed. Ultimately, however,

preventing Plaintiffs from presenting their fully developed motion for class certification 

would amount to punishing Plaintiffs for no purpose other than disciplining their 

attorney. It should nonetheless be noted that Attorney Spencer’s conduct in this case will 

be highly relevant to the Court’s selection of class counsel should the Court reach that 

issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B) (“Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court that 

certifies a class must appoint class counsel. In appointing counsel, the court . . . may 

consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent 

the interests of the class.”).

In light of the Court’s decision to consider the corrected motion for class 

certification filed at ECF No. 55, it must address Defendants’ request that the briefing 

schedule and hearing date be extended. Defendants ask that the Court continue the 

hearing on this motion to permit them to determine whether they need to engage in 

discovery to respond to the class certification motion. The Court finds this appropriate. 

Defendants shall file a response to the motion for class certification no later than October 

5, 2018. Any reply shall be filed by October 12, 2018. A hearing on the motion will be 

held on October 26, 2018.

Last, Defendants ask the Court to expand the deposition limitation set by Judge 

Schopler from 20 to 40. Defendants offer no explanation as to why this expansion is 

appropriate, other than it would “permit Defendants their due process rights to cross 

examine Plaintiffs’ declarants.” (ECF No. 51-1 at 15.) Judge Schopler was aware of the 

circumstances of this case at the time he set the deposition limit. The Court sees no 

Case 3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS Document 58 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS

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

reason to reconsider that limitation in light of the pending motion.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 

Defendants’ motion relating to Plaintiffs’ filings (ECF No. 51), and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ 

motion for leave to file an untimely motion for class certification (ECF No. 53). The 

filings at ECF Nos. 49 and 50 shall be stricken from the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01036-GPC-AGS Document 58 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6