Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05411/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05411-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-filed 9/28/06* 

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARIA VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BY THE BAY INVESTMENTS, INC., et al,

Defendants. /

No. C05-05411 HRL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS;

DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Docket No. 25

In this Title VII sexual harassment case, defendants move to compel plaintiff to respond

without objection to their first set of interrogatories and first set of requests for production of

documents. Defendants also move for monetary sanctions. No opposition was filed. A hearing

was held on September 26, 2006, plaintiff did not appear.

The interrogatories and requests for production were propounded on June 13, 2006, with

responses due thirty days later. On July 14, 2006, plaintiff’s counsel requested a two week

extension, which defendants granted. To this day, plaintiff has failed to respond.

The court ORDERS plaintiff to respond to the interrogatories and requests for

production by October 3, 2006. Plaintiff shall respond without objection. See FED.R.CIV.P.

33(b)(4); Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any

objection).

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 34 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The court denies defendants’ request for sanctions because they have not complied with

Civil Local Rule 7-8 by separately filing a sanctions motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/28/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 34 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO: 

Patrick John Cimmarusti cimmarustip@cwllaw.com 

Curtis L. Metzgar ecwlg7@earthlink.net

Gregory Tokarczyk 

161 Jackson Street

Suite 200

San Jose, CA 95112

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Date: 9/28/06 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-05411-HRL Document 34 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 3