Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00899/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00899-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Doe 1, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:10-cv-00899 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., )

) [Re: Motions at Docket 646, 649]

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED

At docket 646 Defendant Swift Transportation Co., Inc. (“Swift”) filed a motion to

compel discovery responses from Plaintiffs. Defendant Interstate Equipment Leasing

(“IEL”) filed the identical motion at docket 649. Defendants ask for $7,500 in attorney’s

fees.1 Defendants assert that because Plaintiffs’ discovery responses were six weeks

late their objections have been waived and, alternatively, that their objections are

unfounded. Plaintiffs filed a joint response to Defendants’ motions at docket 665. 

Defendants’ reply is at docket 674. Oral argument was requested but would not be of

additional assistance to the court.

1While Swift and IEL filed separate motions, the court nonetheless presumes the

Defendants are seeking a total of $7,500 in attorney’s fees, and not $7,500 a piece, given that

the motions are identical and they share counsel. 

Case 2:10-cv-00899-JWS Document 703 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 6
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

II. BACKGROUND

For readers needing to familiarize themselves with the case, a full recitation of

facts and procedural history can be located at dockets 223 and 605. At issue here is

Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production. 

On December 31, 2014, Defendant served separate sets of interrogatories and

requests for production on each named plaintiff. Copies were sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel,

and, in compliance with the local rules, Defendants filed a notice of service of discovery

on the docket. Plaintiffs’ responses were due February 2, 2015. Plaintiffs failed to meet

this deadline and did not ask for an extension to respond. Six weeks after the Plaintiffs’

response due date, on March 17, 2015, Defendants’ counsel asked Plaintiffs counsel

about the failure to respond. Two days later, on March 19, 2015, Plaintiffs submitted

their responses. Plaintiffs did not provide any substantive responses to Defendants’

eleven interrogatories but rather submitted representative, general objections to the

interrogatories primarily based on the lack of relevance to the Section 1 exemption

issue. Plaintiffs also objected to 35 of Defendants’ 61 requests for production. 

Defendants told Plaintiffs that their responses were inadequate, but after a drawn out

series of discussions regarding discovery matters, Plaintiffs indicated that they would

not be changing their responses. Defendants eventually filed the motion to compel. 

Defendants assert that because Plaintiffs failed to respond in a timely manner, all

objections have been waived and they should be required to submit substantive

responses to Defendants requests. Alternatively, they argue that their discovery

requests are relevant and otherwise appropriate. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides for liberal discovery: “Parties

may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

claim or defense.”2

 Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined broadly; “[r]elevant

2Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-00899-JWS Document 703 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 6
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

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”3

 The court must limit the

requested discovery if it is shown to be “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative;” if “the

party seeking the discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information;” or if

“the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,

considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources,

the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery

in resolving the issues.”4 Additionally, Rule 26(c)(1) permits the court with good cause

to limit discovery in order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

oppression, or undue burden or expense.” 

On a motion to compel, the party seeking to compel discovery has the initial

burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule

26(b).5 In turn, the party opposing discovery has the burden to demonstrate that

discovery should not be allowed due to burden or cost and must explain and support its

objections with competent evidence.6 

IV. DISCUSSION

 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must respond to

interrogatories and requests for production within 30 days.7 “[A] failure to object to

discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”8

3Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

4Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

5Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

6See Lind v. United States, No. 13-cv-32, 2014 WL 2930486, at * 3 (D. Ariz. June 30,

2014); Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. j2 Global, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-3434, 2014 WL 232211,

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014). 

7Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). 

8Richard Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). 

-3-

Case 2:10-cv-00899-JWS Document 703 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 6
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

“This is true even of an objection that the information sought is privileged.”9 However,

Rule 33 provides that an untimely objection can be excused upon a showing of good

cause.10 While Rule 34 does not expressly provide for relief from waiver, courts

considering the issue generally agree that there is no reason to treat the two rules

differently.11 

Courts retain a fair amount of discretion when determining whether good cause

exists for excusing a late objection. Indeed, a court may excuse untimely objections

when the delay is not substantial.12 In addition to the length of delay, courts also

consider the reason for the delay, the presence of bad faith, prejudice to the party

requesting the discovery, and the harshness of imposing a waiver.13

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ discovery requests were

six weeks late. Plaintiffs provide no clear reason for the six-week delay other than that

there was a “inadvertent calendaring error.” Plaintiffs fail to give any details about the

error and why it happened. This is not a situation where there was a delay of a few

days because of a miscalculation of time or a miscommunication between staff

members in counsel’s office. Presumably, then, it means Plaintiffs’ counsel simply

ignored it or forgot about it. Thus, the court concludes that the carelessness exhibited

here does not amount to good cause. 

Plaintiffs cite to a few unreported district court cases in support of their argument

that a calendaring error can be sufficient cause to excuse untimely objections. In these

9David v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). 

10Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). 

11See Karr v. Napolitano, No. C-11-02207, 2012 WL 1965855, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 31,

2012). 

12See Liguori v. Hansen, No. 2:11-cv-00492, 2012 WL 760747, at * 13 (D. Nev. Mar. 6,

2012).

13See Karr, 2012 WL 1965855, at *5; Batts v. Cty. of Santa Clara, No. C08-00286, 2010

WL 1027990, at *1 (Mar. 18, 2010). 

-4-

Case 2:10-cv-00899-JWS Document 703 Filed 11/13/15 Page 4 of 6
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

cases, however, most of the delays were along the lines of a few days and not six

weeks. While there is no indication that Plaintiffs acted in bad faith, the length of the

delay and the failure to provide a more detailed reason makes the untimeliness

inexcusable here. Moreover, upon learning of the missed deadline, Plaintiffs’ counsel

did not request an extension so that they could substantively respond but rather just

filed representative responses which consisted primarily of general objections. 

Plaintiffs argue that the court should not deem their objections waived because

Defendants have not been prejudiced. While the court agrees that Defendants

themselves have not been particularly diligent in moving discovery forward, the

Plaintiffs’ delay here has nonetheless caused some prejudice to Defendants. The lack

of substantive response has certainly stalled Defendants’ ability to conduct follow-up

discovery in a timely manner and has prevented them from obtaining substantive

information needed to be able to bring the Section 1 issue to trial. Plaintiffs also argue

that Defendants have been late with their discovery responses as well and cite to an

email chain between the parties in support. However, based on the emails provided,

the court cannot say that Defendants’ delays were similar. Defendants did not fail to

respond at all but rather were engaged in discussions with Plaintiffs about deadlines

related to the discovery requests and then sought a discovery extension.14 

The court also concludes that finding a waiver here is not particularly harsh. 

After full consideration of the interrogatories and the requests for production, the court

finds that they are primarily relevant for purposes of discovery, and they do not ask for

confidential or privileged information. In addition, for the reasons set forth in

14See doc 665-4. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants were technically four years late

with their discovery responses, but discovery was originally served when the case was venued

in New York and was later stayed when the court compelled arbitration. Later the court was

instructed to resolve the exemption issue and thus discovery on that issue resumed. Given the

circumstances, the court cannot say that Defendants were four years late. 

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-00899-JWS Document 703 Filed 11/13/15 Page 5 of 6
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

Defendants’ reply brief, the court agrees that the materials sought are not protected

from disclosure by the National Labor Relations Act.15

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, Defendants’ motions at docket 646 and 649

are GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) and based on counsel’s supporting

declaration at docket 647, the court concludes that attorney’s fees in the amount of

$7,500 is reasonable for counsel’s work on the motion.

Given that the current deadline was November 11, 2015, the court recognizes

that Plaintiffs will need additional time to substantively respond to Defendants’ requests

and that Defendants may need more time to conduct any follow up discovery. The

parties are directed to confer and provide the court with a proposed deadline for

Plaintiffs’ response and any further discovery on the part of Defendants. The proposed

deadline shall be set out in a stipulation to be filed within 7 days. 

DATED this 13th day of November 2015.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15Doc. 674 at pp. 12-13. 

-6-

Case 2:10-cv-00899-JWS Document 703 Filed 11/13/15 Page 6 of 6