Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00877/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00877-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

1

 Some of the Plaintiffs in this action were represented by their current counsel during 

the assessment dispute. 

* E-filed 8/23/07 *

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SUSANA EULLOQUI, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SEVEN TREES VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS'

ASS'N, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CV 07-00877 JW (HRL)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Docket No. 30

Plaintiffs sue under federal and state fair housing laws for discrimination based on

national origin and family status. Defendants are Seven Trees Village Homeowner's Association

("the Association") and board members in office when the alleged discriminatory conduct

occurred. Plaintiffs move to compel initial disclosures and for sanctions. 

BACKGROUND

The complex factual background between these parties began when the defendant board

members instituted a special assessment on Association members in order to pay for roof

repairs. Members challenged the assessment, arguing it was in violation of state law.1

Although the special assessment was revoked, some members remained dissatisfied with the

board and apparently staged a "palace coup." The validity of this board election is currently

Case 5:07-cv-00877-JW Document 40 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 6
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

 Nothing in this order shall be construed to be determinative of any issue in that

action. 

3 Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(B)

2

being litigated in state court.2

 The facts surrounding this takeover are contested, particularly

with respect to who currently has possession of the Association's documents.

DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that Defendants served their initial disclosures nearly two months late. 

However, the parties dispute the adequacy of these disclosures and whether that two month

delay warrants sanctions. Defendants' initial disclosures included a signed document as

required by FED. R. CIV. P. 26 and a box of documents provided by the Association's

bookkeeper. 

A) ADEQUACY OF DEFENDANTS' DISCLOSURES

Plaintiffs first claim that under FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(D) Defendants are required to

provide for inspection and copying of the insurance policy that may cover them in the instant

action. The initial disclosure statement says: 

There is no insurance coverage presently being provided the Defendants. However, a

claim has been presented to Farmers Insurance on behalf of all Defendants. A copy of

the insurance policy under which this claim is being made is in the possession of the

alleged new Board of Directors and their property manager.

Defendants noted at the hearing that, although they could likely acquire a copy, they do not

currently possess one and thus should not be required to produce it. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(D) requires a party to provide for inspection

and copying "any insurance agreement under which ... an insurance business may be liable to

satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or

reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment." This rule requires disclosure without

reference to whether the information is "within the party's possession, control or custody."3

Here, disclosure obligations cannot be avoided by an assertion that the party does not possess a

copy. Rather, Defendants must attempt to acquire the policy if it may provide coverage. 

Case 5:07-cv-00877-JW Document 40 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 6
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

4

 Plaintiffs vehemently dispute Defendants' representations that the "new" board has

the Association records and allege, ominously, that the individual defendants either have

them or destroyed them. It remains to be seen how the evidence on this point might unfold. 

3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to compel as it pertains to the insurance policy is GRANTED. 

Defendants shall utilize all available resources to produce this policy for inspection and

copying within ten days of the date of this order. 

Plaintiffs next argue that the initial disclosures are inadequate because Defendants failed

to review and then produce documents in their possession, custody or control. Rule 26(a)(1)(B)

requires a party to provide "a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all

documents [and the like] that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party and that the

disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment." 

Notably, this rule does not require document production, but instead gives the disclosing party

the option of either producing documents or describing by category those documents in the

party's possession upon which it intends to rely. 

Defendants' initial disclosure states that they have produced for inspection and copying

"all relevant documents in the possession of Defendants." It further notes that,

[t]here are other possibly relevant documents that are in the possession of persons

claiming to be the new Board of Directors ... that are no longer available to the

Defendants. If those documents are returned to the Defendants [as the result of the State

Court Action], they will be disclosed in a supplemental Initial Disclosure.

Defendants claim that this satisfies Rule 26. 

Perhaps the disclosure statement could have more clearly explained that Defendants

contend they are relieved from the obligation of describing by category the documents on which

they intend to rely because they do not have possession of the same. However, it would be futile

to require Defendants to serve a second statement merely for the purpose of that clarification. 

Because Defendants represented in open court that they have no other documents beyond those

produced, the disclosures made are sufficient. Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion with respect to

compelling further disclosures is DENIED.4

 

Case 5:07-cv-00877-JW Document 40 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 6
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

5 Defendants ignored all of Plaintiffs' many meet and confer efforts until motion

practice was threatened several weeks after initial disclosures were due. 

6 After this motion was filed, the parties stipulated to a continuance to give

Defendants time to produce the initial disclosures. At that time, and in light of the pending

satisfaction of the disclosure obligation, defense counsel offered to pay $900 to cover

reasonable fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs with respect to obtaining Defendants' initial

disclosures. Plaintiffs declined that offer. 

4

B) SANCTIONS

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' delay in disclosing is inexcusable. They argue that

they were prejudiced by both the general delay of the proceedings and by having to serve their

first request for production of documents without the benefit of the disclosures. Further,

Plaintiffs point to Defendants' initial refusal to meet and confer which compelled Plaintiffs to

file this motion.5

 Therefore, Plaintiffs seek sanctions either in the form of evidence and witness

preclusion or for an award of $8,000 in attorney's fees and costs associated with the delay.6

Defendants first defend the delay by explaining that they needed time to determine who

should be representing them. Defense counsel Berger states that the defense should be handled

by the law firm representing the replacement board in the state action or, hopefully, by counsel

to be retained by the insurance carrier. However, this argument holds little weight since Berger

chose to become counsel of record in this action even though he knew of all extenuating

circumstances (i.e., the so-called "palace coup" had already taken place) before filing an

answer. Furthermore, defense counsel made no effort to seek an extension of time to respond

in light of the factual background. 

Defendants next argue against sanctions because plaintiffs' counsel had previously been

offered the chance to review Association files during the special assessment dispute. This point

is irrelevant because, even if Plaintiffs' counsel had reviewed documents for that dispute, this

would not absolve Defendants of their federal disclosure obligations in this case. Finally,

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs suffered little harm or prejudice as a result of the delayed

production. 

//

//

Case 5:07-cv-00877-JW Document 40 Filed 08/23/07 Page 4 of 6
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 7

 The motion for sanctions is granted in part despite Plaintiffs' failure to properly file

and notice this motion as required by Civil L-R 7-8. 

5

Sanctions in the form of witness and evidence preclusion are not appropriate where there

was no substantial harm suffered resulting from the delayed disclosure. Yes, the Plaintiffs were

subjected to some delay, some frustration, and some additional costs. But, there was no

substantial harm. Therefore, that request is DENIED. 

However, because the disclosure delay was inexcusable, because there was some

prejudice to the Plaintiffs as a result, and because Plaintiffs were obliged to bring this motion, a

modest award of fees and costs is appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion with respect to

attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART.7 Defendants shall pay $600 to Plaintiffs

within ten days of the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/23/07 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-00877-JW Document 40 Filed 08/23/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Albert Alan Berger aabtwo@aol.com, conniempena@netscape.net 

Whitney Huston whuston@sturdevantlaw.com, arocha@sturdevantlaw.com,

kstilber@sturdevantlaw.com 

Kimberly Pederson kimp@lawfoundation.org 

Darryl Paul Rains drains@mofo.com, dgillis@mofo.com 

Stephanie Laura Zeller szeller@mofo.com, llontayao@mofo.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 8/23/07

 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:07-cv-00877-JW Document 40 Filed 08/23/07 Page 6 of 6