Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1

*E-Filed 10/10/2006*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYNAPSIS, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS, INC. ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-1524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Evergreen Data Systems, Inc. moves for terminating sanctions, issue preclusion

sanctions, an order of contempt, and/or monetary sanctions against plaintiff Synapsis, LLC, based on

Synapsis’s failure to provide timely discovery responses under a prior court order. The motion was

heard on October 4, 2006. Based on the parties’ briefing, the argument of counsel, and the record

herein, the Court finds that the circumstances do not rise to the level that contempt, terminating or

issue preclusion sanctions are warranted, but the motion for monetary sanctions will be granted in

the amount of $2500. 

 II. BACKGROUND

Synapsis and Evergreen formerly had a business relationship under which Evergreen acted as

a sales agent for Synapsis’s products. The relationship deteriorated, and Synapsis brought this

action alleging breach of contract and associated tort claims.

On June 21, 2006, the Court granted a motion to compel brought by Evergreen against

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 181 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 The motion is entitled “Evergreen Data System’s, Inc.’s Motion For Sanctions Against

Plaintiff, Synapsis, LLC, Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37 (b), and Request for

Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $6995.00.” The only relief requested in the motion is various

forms of sanctions. As such, the motion fully complies with Civil Local Rule 7-8, which provides,

among other things, that, “[a]ny motion for sanctions, regardless of the sources of authority invoked,

. . . must be separately filed and the date for hearing must be set in conformance with Civil L.R.

7-2.” 

2

Synapsis, but denied Evergreen’s request for sanctions, in part because the sanctions request did not

comply with Civil Local Rule 7-8, which requires all sanctions requests to be brought by separatelynoticed motion. The June 21st order required Synapsis to provide supplemental responses to

numerous interrogatories and to serve an amended document request response and a privilege log to

confirm that all non-privileged documents had been produced. The supplemental responses were

due within 20 days of the June 21st order, which was August 10, 2006. Synapsis failed to comply.

Thirteen days later, Evergreen corresponded with Synapsis to warn that it would bring this

sanctions motion unless the supplemental responses were received by August 25, 2006. As of

August 30, 2006, the supplemental responses had not been served, and Evergreen filed this motion.1

 

Sometime shortly thereafter (the record is unclear as to exactly when), Synapsis served the

supplemental responses. The record is also unclear as to when or whether Synapsis provided the

supplemental document response and any privilege log, but Evergreen did not raise that as an issue,

and at the hearing, counsel for Synapsis represented that no documents have been withheld under a

claim of privilege.

III. DISCUSSION

The Court does not impose sanctions lightly. The discovery rules are designed to be largely

self-executing; the system relies on counsel’s integrity as members of the bar and officers of the

Court to act with professionalism and reasonable diligence in meeting their obligations under the

rules and under any specific court orders that may issue in a case.

The remedies of terminating and issue preclusion sanctions exist for the purpose of providing

a remedy to a party where another party’s discovery abuse is so extreme and prejudicial that no

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 181 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 4
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

lesser remedy will cure the harm. See In Re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 432-433 (9th Cir. 1996)

(terminating sanctions are“authorized only in ‘extreme circumstances;’” court must consider, among

other things, the “availability of less drastic sanctions.”); Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Inc. v.

Perkin-Elmer Corp., 190 F.R.D. 644, 648 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (“[e]xclusion sanctions based on alleged

discovery violations are generally improper absent undue prejudice to the opposing side.”) Here,

Evergreen has made no showing that Synapsis’s conduct has so prejudiced Evergreen’s ability to

defend this action on the merits that such an extreme sanction would be warranted.

Evergreen has shown, however, that these circumstances call for imposition of monetary

sanctions. Synapsis’s opposition to this motion (itself filed five days late), attempts to shift the

blame to Evergreen, arguing that Evergreen was dilatory in producing documents that Synapsis

needed to prepare its own responses. This Court’s prior order did indeed acknowledge Synapsis’s

contention that it intended to use forthcoming discovery from Evergreen to help it augment some of

the supplemental responses ordered by the Court. Even assuming, however, that there were delays

in obtaining documents from Evergreen, Synapsis was under court order to provide supplemental

responses by a date certain. Synapsis’s options, therefore, were either to do the best it could and

provide supplemental responses specifically indicating that additional documents were necessary to

provide a complete response, or to present the problem to the Court with a request for additional

time within which to comply. Simply ignoring the prior order was not an acceptable option.

Equally disturbing is the fact that the declaration of Gabriel Espinosa, Esq. offered by

Synapsis in opposition to the motion presents an entirely different explanation for Synapsis’s delay

than that argued in the opposition brief. Mr. Espinosa discloses that apparently the real reason for

the delay was a health problem he was suffering, rather than any conduct of Evergreen. The Court is

sympathetic to Mr. Espinosa’s health circumstances, and might have been inclined to grant

additional time based on those problems if alerted to the situation. Even if Synapsis had been unable

to bring Mr. Espinosa’s health issue to the Court’s attention prior to the deadline expiring, had its

opposition to this motion relied on that issue in a straight-forward manner, without attempting to

shift the blame to Evergreen, the excuse would have carried more weight.

On the present record, however, Synapsis has demonstrated a level of indifference to

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 181 Filed 10/10/06 Page 3 of 4
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

 Evergreen’s reply brief takes issue with the adequacy of the supplemental responses. 

Because this is not a motion to compel further responses, the Court cannot and has not made any

determination as to whether Evergreen might be entitled to yet further responses. For purposes of

evaluating the propriety of sanctions, however, the Court has reviewed the supplemental responses. 

That review suggests that Synapsis has now made a good faith effort to provide further substantive

responses. Some of Evergreen’s quarrels with the supplemental responses appear to be arguments

that arise from Evergreen’s view of the merits, rather than the sufficiency of the responses–if

Evergreen believes that Synapsis lacks facts to support its claims, then the remedy may be a

summary judgment motion rather than a further motion to compel. Nevertheless, whether additional

supplemental responses might be required is a question for another day. 

4

complying with discovery deadlines and orders of the Court that is not acceptable. Accordingly,

within 15 days of this order, counsel for Synapsis shall pay to Evergreen the sum of $2500 in

sanctions.2

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion for monetary sanctions is granted, in the amount of $2500, to be paid within 15

days. The motion is otherwise denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 181 Filed 10/10/06 Page 4 of 4