Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00746/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00746-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 730
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Report &amp; Disclosure
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT SANCHEZ, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

HEDRICK’S HALLOWELL )

CHEVROLET, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv0-0746 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DISCLOSURES

(Document 10)

Defendant Hedrick’s Hallowell Chevrolet (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion to

compel further disclosures on April 28, 2006. Plaintiff Albert Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) did not file

an opposition or otherwise communicate with the Court. Accordingly, the Court deems the

motion suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination action in the Fresno County Superior Court

on or about April 25, 2005. Plaintiff was employed with Defendant until he was terminated on

or about November 14, 2003. Plaintiff states causes of action for (1) tortious termination in

violation of public policy; (2) disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the

California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (3) breach of an oral employment

agreement; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) intentional

infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff requests general damages in the amount of $500,000 for

Case 1:05-cv-00746-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/30/06 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 Plaintiff served his initial disclosures on October 4, 2005. Plaintiff first agreed to provide further 1

disclosures by November 16, 2006, and then again by April 14, 2006.

2

pain and suffering, special damages in the amount of $575,000.00 ($75,000 for loss of earnings

to date and $500,000 for loss of future earnings), punitive damages, attorney’s fees for the

tortuous termination and FEHA causes of action, and costs. 

Defendant removed the action to this Court on June 8, 2005, on the basis of federal

question jurisdiction pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Defendant

contends that Plaintiff was terminated for violating the moonlighting provision of the governing

collective bargaining agreement.

Defendant filed this motion on April 28, 2006, and seeks to compel Plaintiff to provide

disclosures regarding the calculation of all categories of damages he seeks pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(C). Defendant also requests sanctions to compensate for the

expenses in bringing this motion. Defendant did not file a joint statement pursuant to Local Rule

37-251 because despite previous agreements, Plaintiff has not provided the disclosures and has 1

failed to respond to Defendant’s request for input into the draft joint statement. Declaration of

Jason C. Parkin (“Parkin Dec.”), ¶¶ 5-9.

DISCUSSION 

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) provides for certain disclosures to be made within

14 days of the Rule 26(f) scheduling conference. Rule 26(a)(1)(C) provides for the disclosure of:

(C) a computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making

available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary

material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is

based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered;

Rule 37 (a)(2)(A) allows for the filing of a motion to compel Rule 26(a) disclosures.

B. Analysis

Plaintiff’s initial disclosures included the following statement regarding damages:

“Plaintiff seeks economic damages from the date of termination and continuing; Plaintiff

seeks non-economic damages according to proof.”

Exhibit A, attached to Parkin Dec., at 3-4. 

Case 1:05-cv-00746-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/30/06 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

3

Rule 26 does not define the specificity required in initial damages disclosures. Thus,

“guidance as to the adequacy of the disclosures must be gleaned from Rule 26(a)’s purpose: to

‘accelerate the exchange of basic information’ that is ‘needed in most cases to prepare for trial or

make an informed decision about settlement.’” City and County of San Francisco v. Tuto-Saliba

Corp., 218 F.R.D. 219, 221 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Early disclosure also functions to assist the parties

in focusing and prioritizing their organization of discovery. Id. Given these purposes, a plaintiff

should provide more than a lump sum statement of the damages allegedly sustained. Id. The

“computation” of damages required by Rule 26(a)(1)(C) contemplates some analysis. For

example, in a claim for lost wages, there should be some information relating to hours worked

and pay rate. Id. (citations omitted). 

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s statement regarding damages is insufficient. 

Defendant’s motion is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff shall supplement his damages

calculation within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order. Defendant’s request for

sanctions is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 30, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00746-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3