Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02753/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02753-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

ORDER (No. 11-cv-02753-PJH (LB))

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

SUZANNE D. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM FISCHER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-02753-PJH (LB)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: ECF No. 335

The parties raised five discovery disputes in their joint letter brief at ECF No. 335.1The court 

finds the matter suitable for determination (at least preliminarily) without oral argument under 

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), addresses the disputes, and sets a case-management conference on June 9, 

2016, at 11 a.m.

First, the parties contest whether the plaintiff responded to the SpeciGen defendants’ first set 

of document requests. The defendants say that she did not serve formal responses; the plaintiff 

responds obliquely that she has no responsive documents. The defendants doubt that and in any 

event stand on their right to a formal response. They also argue that the plaintiff waived any 

objections by failing to timely respond. (See ECF No. 335 at 1, 4-5.) On this record, the court 

 

1 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

Case 4:11-cv-02753-PJH Document 336 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 3
ORDER (No. 11-cv-02753-PJH (LB)) 2

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

concludes that the plaintiff has not responded formally and orders her to do so by Friday, June 3, 

2016, at 2 p.m. Pacific Time. As to whether she has waived any objections, first, the plaintiff’s 

response suggests that she will respond (and thus suggests that she will not object), and second, it 

is only the defendants who say that she will object. The court cannot tell on this record whether 

she will object. If she does, waiver may be an issue, and there might be relief for untimely 

objections based on a showing of good cause. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 

959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (untimely objections are waived); Batts v. County of Santa 

Clara, No. C 08-00286 JW (HRL), 2010 WL 1027990, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2010) (goodcause standard); Kanawi v. Bechtel Corp., No. C 06-05566 CRB (EDL), 2008 WL 4642168, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2008); see also Brown v. Stroud, No. C-08-02348-VRW (DMR), 2010 WL 

3339524, at *1-*2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010). The court will consider waiver and good cause in 

the context of any objections that the plaintiff actually raises.

Second, the defendants raise the plaintiff’s failure to respond formally to their first set of 

interrogatories. (See ECF No. 335 at 1-2.) The issue is the same, and the order is the same: the 

plaintiff must serve her verified responses by June 3 at 2 p.m. Pacific Time, and the court will 

consider waiver and good cause in the context of objections that the plaintiff raises. 

Third, according to the defendants, the initial disclosures were due in December 2015, and the 

plaintiff served her damages computation in March 2016, immediately noted errors, and promised 

to correct them by April 1, 2016. She has not done that yet. (Id. at 2, 4-5.) The court orders her to 

do so by June 3 at 2 p.m. 

Fourth, the defendants assert that the plaintiff’s document productions were only a 

reproduction of documents that they produced to her, and they point to specific documents that she 

did not produce (such as a settlement agreement and documents about investment advice). (Id. at 

2-5.) The plaintiff says that she has produced all that she has; the defendants note that she actually 

plans to object to the production based on her disagreement with the district judge’s order about 

the preclusive effect of the judgment in the adversary proceeding. (Id. at 4-5.) The plaintiff also 

hints at her planned motion for a protective order. (Id. at 3.) The court again orders the plaintiff to 

respond formally to the documents request by June 3 at 2 p.m. and raise any objections then. The 

Case 4:11-cv-02753-PJH Document 336 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 3
ORDER (No. 11-cv-02753-PJH (LB)) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

court will consider waiver and good cause on that record. The court’s discovery procedures also 

require the plaintiff to move for any protective order in a joint letter brief filed under the civil 

events category “Discovery Letter Brief.” 

Fifth, the defendants want pre-lawsuit documents relevant to their statute-of-limitations 

defense, including documents that may be attorney-client privileged. The plaintiff responds that all 

documents were produced via a response to a subpoena to her prior counsel. The defendants reply 

that the plaintiff’s response insinuates that she produced privileged documents, but she did not. 

(Id. at 2, 4-5.) Again, the court cannot fashion relief on a record that does not include the 

plaintiff’s formal response to the document requests and her assertion of any objections, including 

an objection based on attorney-client privilege. The court orders the plaintiff to serve her 

responses by June 3 at 2 p.m., raise any objections, and provide a privilege log for any withheld 

documents. The court’s standing order at ECF No. 325-1 sets forth its procedures for privilege 

logs, but the parties may agree to other, less onerous procedures.

The court sets a case-management hearing for Thursday, June 9, 2016, at 11 a.m. The parties 

are directed to update the court in a joint statement of no more than three pages filed no later than 

noon Pacific Time on June 2, 2016.

This disposes of ECF No. 335.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2016 ______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:11-cv-02753-PJH Document 336 Filed 05/23/16 Page 3 of 3