Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01574-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Airline Crash

---

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

C-06-1574 ORDER Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAIM I. AYAT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIETE AIR FRANCE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 06-1574 JSW (JL)

ORDER 

All discovery in this case has been referred to this Court by the district court (Hon.

Jeffrey S. White) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. This Court

received Defendant Goodrich’s individual statement regarding a discovery dispute (Docket

# 154), filed March 28, 2008. The discovery cut-off in this case is April 4 (January 9, 2008

order by Hon. Jeffrey S. White at Docket # 111, Ex. F to Goodrich Statement). 

This Court on January 28, 2008, ordered Plaintiff Naim Ayat to respond to

Goodrich’s Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents “in full and

without objection . . . within five days of the issuance of this order.” (Docket # 123, Ex. A to

Goodrich Statement). Ayat filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order, which this

Court denied on February 5. (Docket # 135, Ex. C to Goodrich Statement). 

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 155 Filed 04/04/08 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

C-06-1574 ORDER Page 2 of 3

Ayat served responses on February 27, 2008. Goodrich contends that these

responses cannot be complete and in compliance with this Court’s order because Ayat

produced no documents or answers containing privileged information. Goodrich contends

that, for example, in Request for Production of Documents Number 14, it asked for “all

documents regarding the incident,” meaning the plane crash which Ayat contends caused

his injuries. However, Ayat produced only the Report of the Canadian Transportation Safety

Board in response. Goodrich is skeptical that Ayat has produced all documents responsive

to this request, privileged and non-privileged. Surely Ayat corresponded with his attorney

about the incident, yet he produces no letters. Goodrich contends that other requests which

would encompass privileged documents include, but are not limited to:1, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22,

24, 25, 26, 28, 35, 36, 53, 54, 58, 65, 66, 67, and 68.

Goodrich has communicated with Ayat’s new counsel, Charlie Cochran of Hinton,

Cochran, Borba & Beckwith LLP, regarding the deficiencies of Ayat’s reponses to

Goodrich’s discovery requests. Mr. Cochran asked for a two-week extension, but never

agreed to produce privileged documents. (Ex. E to Goodrich statement - e-mail

correspondence). Because the parties have been unable to reach an agreement, Goodrich

seeks an order compelling Ayat to produce all documents responsive to Goodrich’s

Requests for Production, irrespective of privilege or any other objection, within five days of

the Court’s order. In the alterative, Goodrich seeks leave to file a motion to compel Ayat to

produce all documents which are responsive to Goodrich’s Requests for Production.

Conclusion and Order

This Court denies leave to file a new motion regarding the same discovery requests,

because the Court has already issued its order on these requests. However, if Ayat has

failed to comply with this Court’s order, then he may be subject to sanctions, pursuant to

Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These sanctions may begin with monetary

awards against Ayat or his counsel or both, and then escalate to exclusion of evidence and

preclusion of issues at trial. The Court grants permission for Goodrich to file a motion for

sanctions, should Ayat not immediately comply with this Court’s previous order.

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 155 Filed 04/04/08 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

C-06-1574 ORDER Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2008

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01574-JSW Document 155 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 3