Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01593/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01593-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

*E-FILED 4/29/08*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSE RUIZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ED RICHARD DISCING, INC., et al.,

Defendant. /

NO. C 07-01593 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL AND DENYING

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

This action seeks to recover what plaintiffs contend was unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs move to

compel the production of documents, and they seek monetary sanctions. The Court finds this matter

suitable for disposition without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1 (b).

The record shows, as explained in more detail below, that the motion to compel arose from a

misunderstanding by plaintiffs’ counsel as to options available to a party responding to a document

request under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants have never objected to

producing the documents that are the subject of the motion. The controversy has related solely to

responsibility for the costs of copying the documents and delivering them to plaintiffs’ counsel.

Defendants initially assembled documents responsive to plaintiffs’ document request at the

end of December of 2007, and advised plaintiffs that the documents were available. Defendants

specifically asked how plaintiffs wanted to obtain the documents, offering as one option bringing in 

Case 5:07-cv-01593-JF Document 35 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 5
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

 Plaintiffs are advised to review Civil Local Rule 7-2 (b), which calls for the notice of a

motion to be contained in the same document as the supporting points and authorities. Although the

rules in the state courts of California call for the notice to appear in a separate document, counsel

appearing in this Court are expected to be familiar with, and to adhere to, the rules applicable in this

forum.

2

a commercial copy service. After substantial delay by plaintiffs, and some back and forth over

responsibility for costs, those documents were delivered to plaintiffs’ counsel in March of 2008.

Plaintiffs subsequently asserted that additional documents existed and should be produced. 

Plaintiffs, however, expressly denied that they had any obligation to pay the costs of such further

production, and insisted that the documents be produced at the office of plaintiffs’ counsel. Counsel

for defendants declares that he agreed to produce the additional documents. While that agreement is

not expressly memorialized in the parties’ written correspondence, neither does anything in that

correspondence suggest that defendants ever objected to making a further production. Defense

counsel did suggest that he needed to confer with his client regarding the demands plaintiffs were

making. 

Before hearing back from defendants, plaintiffs then filed these motions.1

 In response,

defendants advised plaintiffs that the documents were available and would be produced once

plaintiffs agreed to pay the copying charges. In the alternative, defendants suggested that plaintiffs

could send a copying service to make copies. Plaintiffs then agreed that they would “pay the costs

for merely copying the documents, which is costs for copying through automatic feeder [sic].”

Thus, at this juncture the parties are in agreement that: (1) the documents will be produced,

and (2) plaintiffs will pay reasonable charges for copying the documents. Plaintiffs may be correct

that where a party refuses or fails to produce documents until after a motion to compel has been

filed, neither the motion to compel nor any accompanying motion for sanctions should be seen as

moot. Indeed, because the documents in dispute here have apparently not yet been produced, the

motion will be “granted” in a technical sense. That said, this is a dispute that should never have

risen to a level requiring Court intervention.

Rule 34, by its terms, only authorizes a party to “inspect, copy, test, or sample” documents,

electronically stored information, or other tangible things, at a “reasonable time [and] place.” Thus,

Case 5:07-cv-01593-JF Document 35 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 5
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

 Plaintiffs apparently suggested that to the extent they pay for any such costs during

discovery, those costs would be recovered from defendants after trial. Even assuming such costs are

recoverable by a prevailing party, that does not relieve plaintiffs from paying them prior to an

adjudication on the merits.

3

 It is unclear what plaintiffs meant by their offer to pay “for merely copying the documents .

. . . through [an] automatic feeder.” To the extent plaintiffs mean they are not obligated to pay for

time defendants incurred in compiling responsive documents, they are correct. To the extent,

however, that plaintiffs assert they are only liable for costs of copying through an “automatic

feeder,” that would depend on the nature of the responsive documents. For example, if the

responsive documents include materials that are bound or that are in a size that cannot be copied

through an automatic feeder, additional copying costs could be warranted.

3

even though under modern practice a producing party often makes copies, “bates stamps” them, and

transmits them to the demanding party, nothing in the Rules give a demanding party the right to

receive a production in that fashion, or to shift copying costs to the producing party. Here, plaintiffs

at most might have an argument that requesting production at their counsel’s office was

“reasonable,” but even if that were so, defendants’ only obligation would be to present the original

documents at the office of plaintiffs’ counsel for inspection and copying at plaintiffs’ expense. 

In short, plaintiffs never had the right to demand that defendants bear any of the costs of

making copies of the documents produced.2 Plaintiffs never had the right to demand that defendants

bear any costs of expedited delivery of copies of the documents. Although production of original

documents at the offices of a demanding party’s attorney might be “reasonable” in some

circumstances, plaintiffs have not shown it would be reasonable here. Accordingly, good cause

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. At a time to be agreed to between the parties, but not more than five business days from

the date of this order, plaintiffs shall arrange for a commercial copy service to obtain copies of the

documents at issue at the offices of defendants or their counsel, as defendants’ counsel may direct;

or

2. In the alternative, upon plaintiffs’ agreement to pay reasonable copying charges as may be

demanded by defendants’ counsel,3 defendants shall mail copies of the documents at issue to

plaintiffs’ counsel within five days of the date of this order. Such materials shall be sent by

overnight carrier if plaintiffs agree to pay the charges for doing so.

3. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is denied. Defendants’s request for sanctions included in

Case 5:07-cv-01593-JF Document 35 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

C 07-01593 JF (RS)

4

their opposition to the motion to compel is also denied, both because imposition of sanctions is not

warranted under all the circumstances, and because the request does not comply with Civil Local

Rule 7-8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/29/08 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01593-JF Document 35 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

C 07-01593 JF (RS)

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Rod Divelbiss rdivelbiss@collette.com

Robert S. Lawrence rlawrence@collette.com, kdavis@collette.com, rdivelbiss@collette.com

Adam Wang waqw@sbcglobal.net

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 4/29/08 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Chambers 

Case 5:07-cv-01593-JF Document 35 Filed 04/29/08 Page 5 of 5