Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05810/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05810-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA McCOLM,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING 

AUTHORITY ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C-02-05810 PJH (JCS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART SAN FRANCISCO

HOUSING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

[Docket Nos. 119 and 122]

Defendants The San Francisco Housing Authority, et al. have filed the following motions,

which came on for hearing before the undersigned pursuant to notice and court order on March 16,

2007. 

1. The San Francisco Housing Authority Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further

Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production, Set One 

(“Defendants’ Motion to Compel”) [Docket No. 122]; and

2. The San Francisco Housing Authority Defendants’ Motion for Monetary Sanctions

(“Defendants’ First Motion for Monetary Sanctions”) [Docket No. 119].

Having heard the arguments of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court rules as set

forth below.

A. Defendants’ Motion to Compel

Defendants’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED. 

(1) Interrogatories

The Court first notes that Plaintiff did not provide any substantive responses to any of the

interrogatories. Rather, Plaintiff repeats, over and over again, the same boilerplate objections. 

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 171 Filed 03/19/07 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

2

Each one of the boilerplate objections raised by Plaintiff is OVERRULED. 

Plaintiff objects that the number of interrogatories, including sub-parts, is greater than 25. 

This objection is OVERRULED. The Court approves the number of interrogatories as a reasonable

number and specifically grants Defendants permission to propound these interrogatories.

Plaintiff’s objection that the interrogatories are vague, ambiguous, and compound is

OVERRULED. The interrogatories are readily comprehensible. Indeed, all of the interrogatories

specifically seek information about the allegations made by Plaintiff in the Complaint, her claims, or

her injuries. Plaintiff’s objection that the interrogatories call for a legal conclusion is

OVERRULED. This is not a proper objection to an interrogatory. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c). 

Plaintiff’s objections that the interrogatory information is equally available to Defendants are

OVERRULED. This is not a proper objection, as Plaintiff has argued in her Motions to Compel. 

Plaintiff’s objections that the interrogatories are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence are OVERRULED. This objection is completely frivolous. 

The interrogatories are specifically limited to the issues in this case. Plaintiff’s objections on the

basis of attorney client privilege and work product doctrine, as well as privacy, are also

OVERRULED. Plaintiff has not made any showing that would justify the application of these

doctrines. 

(2) Document Requests

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ First Request for Production of Documents is quite

similar to her responses to interrogatories. Plaintiff does not assert that she produced any documents

in response to these requests, and, in her written responses, does not identify any documents or make

any commitment to produce any documents. She only reiterates, over and over again, boilerplate

objections that have no applicability.

All of Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ First Request for Production of Documents are

OVERRULED. 

Plaintiff’s objection that the requests are vague and ambiguous is OVERRULED. The

document requests are comprehensible, most particularly because they quote from Plaintiff’s

Complaint in this matter. Plaintiff’s objections that the requests are overbroad and not reasonably

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 171 Filed 03/19/07 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

1

 The Court (as requested by Plaintiff at the March 16, 2007 hearing) is granting Plaintiff until

April 20, 2007, to provide documents and answers, rather than ten (10) days, light of Plaintiff’s recent

family and medical issues.

3

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence are OVERRULED. These objections are

frivolous. The document requests specifically relate to the claims in this case. Plaintiff’s objection

on the basis of privilege, work product, and privacy are OVERRULED. Plaintiff has made no

showing that would justify the application of these doctrines. Plaintiff’s objection that the

documents are equally available to Defendants is OVERRULED for the reason previously stated. 

Plaintiff’s objection that the document requests place an undue burden on her is OVERRULED. 

Plaintiff has made no showing that would justify this Court’s interceding on the basis of burden. 

Finally, the Court notes that the document requests are narrowly tailored to the allegations in the

Complaint. 

Plaintiff is ORDERED, on or before April 20, 2007,

1

 to provide full and complete

responses, without objection, to all of the interrogatories in the Housing Authority’s Special

Interrogatories, Set One, and to produce all of the documents in her possession, custody, and control

that are responsive to the Housing Authority’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

B. Defendants’ Motion for Monetary Sanctions

Defendants’ Motion for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED. The Court agrees that each and

every one of Plaintiff’s discovery responses at issue in this Motion are inappropriate and inadequate. 

 Nonetheless, the Court concludes that an award of sanctions for failure to disclose at this time

would be unjust. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that sanctions may be

appropriate if Plaintiff continues to violate the rules governing discovery or if she violates this or

any other court order. Accordingly, the Motion for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2007 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-05810-PJH Document 171 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 3