Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00005/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00005-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

--------···-·--~ 

FILED 

~y-~~ 

CLlHf<. l~~---~-- U'.::~ DISTHICl COUHT 

SOUTHERN DIS rn1c I 01'· CALI CORN IA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES LINLOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHASE BANKCARD SERVICES, INC. 

and CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 17cv5-WQH(KSC) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUEST FOR AN ORDER 

COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO 

PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND 

RESPOND TO WRITTEN 

DISCOVERY [Doc. No. 39.] 

20 Before the Court is a document filed by plaintiff entitled "Joint Motion for 

21 Determination of Discovery Dispute." [Doc. No. 39.] In this "Joint Motion," plaintiff 

22 complains that defendants have not provided adequate responses to his discovery 

23 requests. He seeks an order from the Court compelling defendants to produce documents 

24 and provide all relevant information in response to unidentified discovery requests. [Doc. 

25 No. 39, at pp. 4-6.] Despite its title, plaintiffs Motion is not "Joint," because defendants 

26 did not contribute to the "Joint Motion." [Doc. No. 40, at pp. 1-7.] Instead, defendants 

27 filed an Opposition to the "Joint Motion." [Doc. No. 40.] Plaintiff then filed a Reply. 

28 [Doc. No. 48.] For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that plaintiffs 

l 7cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 67 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
1 request for an order compelling defendants to produce documents and provide all relevant 

2 information in response to unidentified discovery requests must be DENIED. 

3 Background 

4 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action prose. In the First Amended Complaint, 

5 plaintiff generally alleges that he was the victim of credit card fraud and reported the 

6 fraud to defendants, but defendants failed to remove the fraudulent charges or conduct a 

7 reasonable investigation and then reported false and misleading information to credit 

8 reporting agencies in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [Doc. No. 22, at pp. 2-3, 

9 9 et seq.] 

10 Defendants represented in their Opposition, that plaintiff served them with written 

11 discovery requests on November 20, 2017, and they provided plaintiff with timely 

12 responses on December 26, 2017. [Doc. No. 40, at p. 2.] Defendants also represented 

13 that in response to plaintiffs document requests they produced various non-confidential 

14 documents and advised plaintiff they would produce additional confidential documents 

15 subject to an appropriate protective order, but plaintiff has refused to stipulate to the entry 

16 of a protective order. [Doc. No. 40, at p. 2.] 

17 Discussion 

18 A. Timeliness. 

19 The Scheduling Order filed in this case states that: "All discovery motions must be 

20 filed within 45 days of the service of an objection, answer, or response which become the 

21 subject of dispute .... " [Doc. No. 37, at p. 2. See also Chambers' Rule V(A).] 

22 Defendants have represented that they responded to plaintiffs discovery requests on 

23 December 26, 2017. [Doc. No. 40, at p. 2.] Plaintiff did not file his "Joint Motion" until 

24 March 20, 2018, long after the 45-day deadline had expired. Accordingly, the Court 

25 finds that plaintiffs request for an order compelling defendants to provide further 

26 response to discovery requests must be DENIED as untimely. 

27 I I I 

28 I I I 

2 

17cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 67 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
1 B. Joint Motion Process. 

2 In preparing his moving papers, it is apparent that plaintiff reviewed Chambers' 

3 Rules V pertaining to discovery disputes. This is apparent, because plaintiff quoted from 

4 Chambers' Rule Vin his "Joint Motion." [Doc. No. 39, at p. 2.] However, it is also 

5 apparent that plaintiff either did not understand Chambers' Rule V or decided not to 

6 comply with it. Defendants represented in their Opposition that plaintiff provided them 

7 with a draft copy of his Joint Motion before he filed it, and defendants explained that it 

8 "lacked merit" and included "procedural defects," but plaintiff filed the "Joint Motion" 

9 without addressing defendants' concerns. [Doc. No. 40, at p. 4.] 

10 The purpose of the "Joint Motion" process, as outlined in Chambers' Rule V, is to 

11 have opposing parties use a specific format to present their respective arguments about a 

12 discovery dispute in a single document. Chambers' Rule V states in part as follows: 

13 For each written discovery request in dispute, the Joint Motion must include: 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

The exact wording of the discovery request; 

The exact response to the request by the responding party; 

A statement by the propounding party and any points and authorities 

as to why a further response should be compelled; and, 

A precise statement by the responding party and any points and 

authorities as to the bases for all objections and/or claims of privilege. 

21 Chambers' Rule V(D). 

22 In his moving papers, plaintiff did not identify any specific discovery request that 

23 is in dispute between the parties. Nor did he provide the exact wording of any specific 

24 discovery request that is in dispute between the parties. Plaintiff also did not provide 

25 defendants' response to any specific discovery request or any of the parties' arguments 

26 addressing why defendants' response to any specific discovery request was adequate or 

27 inadequate. If plaintiff followed Chambers' Rule V, the Court would expect to see 

28 something similar to the following sample as to each discovery request in dispute: 

3 

l 7cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 67 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Plaintifrs Document Request No.1: Produce any and all 

documents showing you conducted a reasonable investigation of plaintiff's 

allegations to you that he was a victim of credit card fraud. 

Defendant's Response to Plaintifrs Document Request No. 1: 

Defendants object to this request as overly broad and ambiguous. Defendant 

also objects to this request in that it seeks documents protected by the 

attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. 

Plaintifrs Statement as to Why a Further Response Should Be 

Compelled: Defendants' response to Document Request No. 1 is not 

adequate. First, defendants have not explained why they believe the request 

is overly broad and ambiguous. Second, it is unclear whether defendants are 

withholding any documents from production based on the attorney-client 

privilege or the work product doctrine. Federal Rule 26(b )( 5) provides that a 

party withholding documents based on the attorney-client privilege or work 

product doctrine "expressly make the claim" and provide a description of 

any documents "not produced or disclosed." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b )(5). Any 

such documents must be described "in a manner that, without revealing 

information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess 

the claim." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A)(i)&(ii). 

Defendants' Statement as to the Bases for All Objections and/or 

Claims of Privilege. Plaintiff's Document Request No. 1 is overly broad 

and ambiguous, because it is not limited as to time and would require 

defendants to conduct an unlimited search for responsive documents. 

Defendants are unable to produce responsive documents unless plaintiff 

provides the dates he allegedly advised defendants of unauthorized charges 

to his credit card account. Defendants are withholding documents based on 

the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine that were 

prepared by counsel after plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this action. 

23 Because plaintiff did not identify any specific discovery requests and did not 

24 follow the format required by Chambers' Rule V, defendants and the Court have been left 

25 to guess which of plaintiffs discovery requests, if any, are actually in dispute and for 

26 what reasons. In short, plaintiff has not presented an actual discovery dispute for the 

27 Court to resolve. 

28 I I I 

4 

17cv5·WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 67 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
1 Chambers' Rule V(D) also states that: "A party seeking to bring a discovery 

2 dispute before the Court must provide the opposing part a reasonable opportunity to 

3 contribute to the joint motion .... This Court considers a minimum of 5 business days 

4 prior to the anticipated filing date of the joint motion to be a reasonable time period for a 

5 party to participate meaningfully in the preparation of a joint motion. This means that the 

6 party initiating a joint motion to resolve a discovery dispute must provide opposing 

7 counsel with a complete draft of the joint motion and any exhibits or supporting 

8 declarations at least 5 business days prior to the anticipated filing date." Chambers Rule 

9 V(D). 

10 Plaintiff has represented that he provided defendants with his proposed "Joint 

11 Motion" on March 8, 2018 "in compliance with" Chambers' Rule V(D). As noted above, 

12 plaintiff did not file his "Joint Motion" until March 20, 2018, so defendants did have time 

13 to review those papers before they were filed. However, in this Court's view, defendants 

14 were not provided with "a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the joint motion," 

15 because plaintiffs draft was not only untimely under the Scheduling Order in this case 

16 but was not in the format required by Chambers' Rule V(D). Although it appears that 

1 7 defendants attempted to warn plaintiff of these "procedural defects," plaintiff apparently 

18 elected to ignore those warnings. For these reasons, the Court finds that plaintiffs 

19 request for an order compelling defendant to provide further responses to his unidentified 

20 discovery requests must be DENIED for failure to comply with Chambers Rule V(D). 

21 C. Meet and Confer Requirements. 

22 Chambers' Rule V(B) states as follows: "Counsel must meet and confer on all 

23 issues before contacting the Court. If counsel are located in the same district, the meet 

24 and confer must be in person. If counsel are located in different districts, then telephone 

25 or video conference may be used for meet and confer discussions. In no event will meet 

26 and confer letters, facsimiles or emails satisfy this requirement." Chambers' Rule V(B). 

27 Civil Local Rule 26. l(a) also states that: "The court will entertain no motion pursuant to 

28 [the discovery rules] unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning 

5 

17cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 67 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

[the discovery rules] unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning 

all disputed issues .... " CivLR 26.l(a). In addition, Federal Rule 37(a)(l) requires any 

party filing a motion seeking an order compelling discovery to first meet and confer "in 

good faith .... " Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(l). 

Plaintiff has stated that he is a resident ofNevada and has "attempted to meet and 

confer via fax and phone" in compliance with Chambers Rule V(B) and Local Rule 

26.l(a). [Doc. No. 39, at p. 1 (emphasis added).] Defense counsel submitted a 

Declaration in support of defendants' Opposition which states that: "On March 8, 2018, 

without any advance notice or attempt to meet and confer, plaintiff sent me a draft joint 

motion ... via facsimile. On behalf of defendants, I responded by letter the next day .... 

On March 12, 2018, I received another fax from plaintiff regarding the threatened 

motion ... I again responded the next day, March 13, 2018, reiterating why the Motion 

lacked merit and providing my availability to meet and confer by telephone, which 

14 plaintiff had still not attempted to do .... On March 15, 2018, I called plaintiff and left a 

15 voicemail confirming availability to meet and confer that day. When plaintiff called 

16 back, he stated he was recording the call, to which I did not agree. I indicated to plaintiff 

17 that while I remained willing to speak about the various issues raised by plaintiff, I would 

18 not agree to speak on a recorded line. . . . Plaintiff refused to speak on an unrecorded line 

19 regarding the motion and plaintiff unilaterally filed the motion .... " [Doc. No. 40-1, at 

20 pp. 2-3.] 

21 Based on the foregoing, it is this Court's view that plaintiff did not meet and confer 

22 "in good faith" before filing his "Joint Motion." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(l). The meet and 

23 confer requirements contemplate "an informal conference" in which the parties "present 

24 to each other the merits of their respective positions with the same specificity with which 

25 they would briefthe discovery dispute." Wilson v. Aargon Agency, Inc., 262 F.R.D. 561, 

26 564 (D. Nev. 2010). To satisfy the meet and confer requirements, the moving party must 

27 "personally engage in two-way communication with the non-responding party to 

28 meaningfully discuss each contested discovery dispute in a genuine effort to avoid 

6 

l 7cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 67 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
1 judicial intervention. The consultation obligation promotes a frank exchange between 

2 [the parties] to resolve issues by agreement or to at least narrow and focus matters in 

3 controversy before judicial resolution is sought. To meet this obligation, parties must 

4 treat the informal negotiation process as a substitute for, and not simply a formalistic 

5 prerequisite to, judicial resolution of discovery disputes." Cung Lev. Zujfa, LLC, 321 

6 F.R.D. 636, 647 (D. Nev. 2017) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

7 Here, the facts and circumstances as presented in the parties' respective moving 

8 and opposing papers indicate that plaintiff did not satisfy the meet and confer 

9 requirements, as he did not have a "frank exchange" with defense counsel by telephone 

10 about each of the issues in dispute before he filed his papers. Id. In addition, it is this 

11 Court's view that a party cannot satisfy the requirement to meet and confer in good faith 

12 by refusing to discuss the matters in dispute unless the call is recorded. The Court 

13 expects counsel and parties without counsel to be able to meet and confer in a 

14 meaningful, productive, respectful manner without the need for a recording. Insisting 

15 that an informal conference be recorded does not promote the type of conversation 

16 necessary to satisfy the meet and confer requirements. When one party insists on 

17 recording an informal meet and confer session, it naturally creates a hostile, combative 

18 environment that is not conducive to genuine dialogue. In other words, plaintiff is on 

19 notice that recording a meet and confer session is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. 

20 Accordingly, the Court finds that, in addition to the reasons cited above, plaintiffs 

21 request for an order compelling defendants to provide further responses to discovery 

22 requests must be DENIED for failure to satisfy the meet and confer requirements. 

23 D. Defendants' Request for Sanctions. 

24 Citing Federal Rule 37(a)(5)(B), defendants seek monetary sanctions against 

25 plaintiff in the amount of $2,134 to cover the cost of drafting and filing the Opposition to 

26 plaintiffs "Joint Motion." [Doc. No. 40, at p. 7.] Defendants argue that monetary 

27 sanctions are appropriate under the circumstances, because plaintiff was not 

28 "substantially justified" in filing his "Joint Motion," as defendants advised him of the 

7 

17cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 67 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
1 procedural defects in his papers before they were filed. However, the Court finds that 

2 "other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B). On 

3 the other hand, monetary sanctions will be imposed against plaintiff if he continues to 

4 disregard the Federal Rules, Chambers' Rules, and Local Rules in future filings with this 

5 Court. 

6 Conclusion 

7 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for an 

8 order compelling defendants to produce documents and provide all relevant information 

9 in response to unidentified discovery requests must be DENIED because it is untimely 

10 and because plaintiff failed to follow established rules and procedures in presenting his 

11 request. Defendants' request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff is also DENIED. 

12 [Doc. No. 39.] 

13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

14 Dated: May _i_, 2018 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8 

17cv5-WQH(KSC) 

Case 3:17-cv-00005-WQH-KSC Document 67 Filed 05/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8