Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05784/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05784-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and particular circumstances underlying

the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAUL LUEVANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOWARD CHIEN,

Defendant. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-05784 RS (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF RAUL

LUEVANO’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

[Docket No. 18]

Pursuant to Rule 37, plaintiff Raul Luevano moves for sanctions. Defendant Howard Chien

opposes the motion. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the motion is submitted and the hearing scheduled

to be held on July 13, 2010 is vacated. Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of

counsel, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Luevano’s motion for sanctions is denied.1

Plaintiff Luevano moves for sanctions on the grounds that the discovery sought was not

produced until after he moved to compel. Mot. at 1. Specifically, he had sought production of tax

returns to determine whether defendant met the gross income requirements under the Fair Labor

Standards Act. Id. Defendant Chien first objected to the discovery sought on the grounds, inter

Case 5:08-cv-05784-RS Document 23 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

alia, of privacy and privilege but he later relented after the parties met and conferred. Mot. at 2. 

Plaintiff Luevano complains that defendant Chien waited 7 days after he had agreed to produce the

discovery. He moves for an award totaling $1,800. Mot. at 3.

Defendant Chien states that he produced tax returns for years 2007-2009 as soon as he

received them. Opp. at 3-4. “Defendant explained that he had only recently received copies of his

2007, 2008, and 2009 tax returns from his tax preparer, which caused the delay.” Id. He further

states that plaintiff waited more than ten months after his discovery responses were served before

making any efforts to challenge the objection. Opp. at 3.

Rule 37(a)(5)(A) states:

If the motion is granted (or disclosure or discovery is provided after filing). If the

motion is granted – or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the

motion was filed – the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the

party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney

advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in

making the motion, including the attorney’s fees. But the court must not prder this

payment if:

(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or

discovery without court action;

(ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified;

or

(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). 

Following the meet and confer by the parties, defendant Chien agreed to produce the

discovery sought. Because of delays in obtaining the tax returns from the tax preparer, he was not

able to produce them until May 10, 2010 (the same day the motion to compel was filed). Therefore,

the court finds that the defendant’s response was substantially justified. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

motion for sanctions is denied.

Dated: July 1, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 5:08-cv-05784-RS Document 23 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 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

ORDER, page 3

Case 5:08-cv-05784-RS Document 23 Filed 07/01/10 Page 3 of 3