Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00069/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00069-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

BETTY GUZMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION,

INC., ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.11-0069-WQH(WVG)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT

STATEMENT FOR

DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

On March 4, 2014, the Court received a Joint Statement For Determination of Discovery Disputes (“Joint

Statement”). The Court, having reviewed the Joint Statement and the documents attached thereto, and GOOD CAUSE

APPEARING, HEREBY DENIES as UNTIMELY the motions to compel

further responses to interrogatories and requests for

production of documents contained in the Joint Statement.

Background

On September 23, 2013, the Court issued a Case

Management Conference Order (“CMC Order”) that stated that

discovery was authorized only for class certification

11cv0069 1

Case 3:11-cv-00069-BAS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 8
 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

issues. Discovery on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and

Defendants’ defenses was not authorized.

The CMC Order states in pertinent part: 

All discovery pertaining to facts shall be

completed on or before March 31, 2014... “Completed” means that all discovery under

Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure must be initiated a sufficient

period of time in advance of the cut-off date,

so that it may be completed by the cut-off

date, taking into account the times for services, notice, and response as set forth in

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All

disputes concerning discovery shall be brought

to the attention of the Magistrate Judge no

later than thirty (30) days following the date

upon which the event giving rise to the discovery dispute occurred.”(emphasis in original). (CMC Order, at 2, ll. 17-18, 20-27).

This Court’s Chambers Rules also state in pertinent

part: “For written discovery, the event giving rise to the

discovery dispute is the date of the service of the

response.” (Hon. William V. Gallo Chambers Rules, at

IV.E.).

On November 8, 20131/, Plaintiff and Defendants filed

a Joint Motion For Extension of Time To File Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Dispute (“Joint Motion For

Extension”). In the Joint Motion For Extension, the

parties acknowledged that the deadline to bring the

dispute to the Court’s attention was on the very day they

filed it. On November 12, 20132/, the Joint Motion For

1/

November 8, 2013 was a Friday.

2/

November 12, 2013, a Tuesday, was the first business day after Veteran’s

Day, a federal court holiday.

11cv0069 2

Case 3:11-cv-00069-BAS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 8
 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

Extension was denied for two reasons: the parties’ failure

to meet and confer in person and because it was untimely.

Requests for Admission and Interrogatories

 On August 5, 2013, Plaintiff served Requests for

Admission and Interrogatories on Defendants Ashford

University (“Ashford”) and Bridgepoint Education

(“Bridgepoint”).

On October 9, 2013, Ashford provided to Plaintiff

Responses to the Requests for Admission and Interrogatories. No Responses were received from Bridgepoint.

On October 29, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet

and confer letter3/ to Ashford’s counsel regarding his

perceived deficiencies in Ashford’s Responses to Requests

for Admission and Interrogatories. The meet and confer

letter also noted Bridgepoint’s failure to respond.

On November 15, 2013, Bridgepoint provided to

Plaintiff its Responses to Requests For Admission and

Interrogatories.

On November 22, 2013, in compliance with the Court’s

Local Rules and this Court’s Chambers Rules, albeit late

in the process, counsel attended an in-person meet and

confer conference. At the conference, Defendants’ counsel

stated that supplemental responses to the Requests for

Admission and Interrogatories may be forthcoming, but did

not indicate which discovery responses would be supplemented.

3/

The meet and confer obligation done only by letter is a violation of the

Court’s Local Rules and this Court’s Chambers Rules. Since counsel are both

located in San Diego County, they were required to meet and confer in person.

11cv0069 3

Case 3:11-cv-00069-BAS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/18/14 Page 3 of 8
 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

On December 10, 2013 and January 23, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email and letter to Defendants’

counsel which inquired of Defendants’ counsel when supplemental responses to the Requests for Admission and Interrogatories would be provided.

On February 3, 2014, Defendants’ counsel served on

Plaintiff’s counsel Supplemental Responses to the Requests

for Admission and Interrogatories. 

On March 4, 2014, the Court received the Joint

Statement.

In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

33(b)(2) and 36(a)(3), Ashford and Bridgepoint each had

until September 4, 2013, to provide their responses to

Plaintiffs discovery requests. When they did not respond

on time, the 30-day clock to resolve those disputes began

to run. Ashford’s untimely responses 30 days later on

October 9, 2013, did not reset the clock, but even assuming that it did, Plaintiff had until November 12, 2013, to

bring the matter to the Court’s attention. Defendant’s

Supplemental Responses served on February 3, 2014 also did

not reset the clock as Plaintiff contends. To follow

Plaintiff’s logic, the 30-day clock would never begin to

run as long as the opposing party continued to amend or

supplement earlier responses. The filing by the parties of

their Joint Motion For Extension on November 8, 2013, by

itself, was insufficient to toll the clock.

It appears to the Court that the Response to Interrogatory No. 7 is the only interrogatory at issue in the

11cv0069 4

Case 3:11-cv-00069-BAS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/18/14 Page 4 of 8
 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

Joint Statement. The Response to Interrogatory No. 7 was

served on October 9, 2013. The response was never changed

or supplemented. Any motion to compel a supplemental

response to Interrogatory No. 7 was due on November 12,

20134/. Since the Joint Statement was not received by the

Court until March 4, 2014, the motion to compel further

response to Interrogatory No. 7 is untimely. Therefore,

the motion to compel further response to Interrogatory No.

7 is DENIED. Defendants need not provide a supplemental

response to Interrogatory No. 7.

Requests For Production of Documents

On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff served on Ashford

and Bridgepoint Requests for Production of Documents.

On December 23, 2013, Ashford and Bridgepoint served

on Plaintiff their Responses to the Requests for Production of Documents.

On January 23, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet

and confer letter5/ to Defendants’ counsel regarding his

perceived deficiencies in Defendants’ Responses to the

Requests for Production of Documents 

On January 27, 2014, Defendants’ counsel responded

to Plaintiff’s counsel’s meet and confer letter regarding

their Responses to Requests for Production of Documents.

Defendants’ counsel maintained Defendants’ objections to

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 11 and 16.

4/

The actual date a motion to compel a supplemental response to

Interrogatory No. 7 was due was November 10, 2013, a Sunday. See fn. 2.

5/

See fn. 3

11cv0069 5

Case 3:11-cv-00069-BAS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/18/14 Page 5 of 8
 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

On February 3, 2014, counsel attended an in-person

meet and confer conference regarding Defendants’ Responses

to the Requests for Production of Documents. At the

conference, Defendants’ counsel maintained Defendants’

objections to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 11

and 16.

On March 4, 2014, the Court received the Joint

Statement.

It appears to the Court that the Responses to

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 11 and 16 are at

issue. The Response to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 11 and 16 was served on December 23, 2013. Any

joint statement containing a motion to compel further

responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 11

and 16 was due on January 23, 2014. Since the Joint

Statement was received by the Court on March 4, 2014, the

motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 11 and 16 is untimely. Therefore,

the motion to compel further responses to Requests for

Production of Documents Nos. 11 and 16 is DENIED. Defendants need not provide supplemental responses to Requests

for Production of Documents Nos. 11 and 16.

Conclusion

This is not a close call. Plaintiff clearly knew the

rules that discovery disputes must be brought to the

Court’s attention in a timely manner and no later than 30

days from the time the dispute arose. The parties were

advised of this in the Court’s Order of November 12, 2013.

11cv0069 6

Case 3:11-cv-00069-BAS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/18/14 Page 6 of 8
 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

The clock does not reset simply because Plaintiff allowed

Defendants to serve untimely responses. At this time, with

two weeks left before fact discovery is to conclude on

March 31, 2014, the parties brought to the Court’s attention discovery disputes that arose in October and December

2013.

In the Case Management Conference Order, the parties

were ordered that all discovery was to be initiated so

that it was completed by the set deadline. To allow the

requested discovery would require an extension of time for

fact discovery to be completed, which in turn, would

require extending the date by which the critical Motion

for Class Certification must be filed.6/ At this time, the

Court is unwilling to extend any dates set in the Case

Management Conference Order.

In Wong v. Regents of the University of California,

410 F.3d 1052, 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005), the court

stated:

In these days of heavy caseloads, trial

courts... routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of cases. Those efforts

will be successful only if the deadlines are

taken seriously by the parties, and the best

way to encourage that is to enforce the deadlines. Parties must understand that they will

pay a price for failure to comply strictly

with scheduling and other orders, and that

failure to do so may properly support severe

sanctions and exclusion of evidence...

If (Plaintiff) had been permitted to disregard

the deadline..., the rest of the schedule laid

out by the court months in advance, and understood by the parties, would have to have been

6/

The Case Management Conference Order set April 30, 2014 as the date by

which the Motion for Class Certification must be filed.

11cv0069 7

Case 3:11-cv-00069-BAS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/18/14 Page 7 of 8
 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

altered as well. Disruption to the schedule of

the court and other parties is not harmless.

Courts set such schedules to permit the court

and the parties to deal with cases in a thorough and orderly manner, and they must be

allowed to enforce them, unless there are good

reasons not to. (emphasis added).

See also 02 Micro Intern Ltd. v. Monolithic Power

Systems,Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1368-1369 (9th Cir. 2006).

Neither party, but particularly Plaintiff, has

explained, let alone justified, the extraordinary delay in

bringing these disputes to the Court’s attention. Without

good cause having been demonstrated, there is no reason to

grant the parties’ requests.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2014

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

11cv0069 8

Case 3:11-cv-00069-BAS-WVG Document 69 Filed 03/18/14 Page 8 of 8