Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00279/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00279-2/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YUE ZHOU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WANG’S RESTAURANT,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-0279 PVT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO COMPEL; AND ORDER SANCTIONING

DEFENDANT FOR FAILING TO RESPOND TO

DISCOVERY

Pursuant to this court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time for hearing this

motion to compel (“Order Shortening Time”), on November 10, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to

Compel Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Requests.1 Pursuant to the Order Shortening

Time, Defendant’s opposition was due November 15, 2005. Defendant filed no opposition to the

motion to compel. On November 18, 2005, this court issued an Order Tentatively Granting

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel; and Order to Defendant to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not

Be Sanctioned for Failing to Respond to Discovery (the “Tentative Order and Order to Show

Cause”). On November 21, 2005, Defendant filed a declaration in response to the Order to Show

Cause. Based on the file herein,

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 32 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 The court’s Electronic Filing System reflects that Plaintiffs’ motion to shorten time, 

the Order to Shorten Time, and the Tentative Order and Order to Show Cause were all served 

on Defense counsel via the court’s ECF system. The court expects Defense counsel, who is 

duly registered as an ECF filer, to maintain the ability to receive all ECF notices from the court, 

and when he receives notice of a filing to retrieve his copy of it using PACER. Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 5(b)(3) regarding “service by electronic means” is inapplicable to service “through

the court’s transmission facilities.” All counsel registered for ECF are expected to take the necessary

steps to ensure they properly receive notices from ECF. If it comes to registered counsel’s 

attention that he did not receive notice of a filing, it is incumbent on him to determine why he is 

not receiving the transmissions. (It is evident from Defense counsel’s declaration that he was actually

aware of the Order Shortening Time no later than November 14, 2005, yet inexplicably made no 

effort to find out from the court how to get his copy from ECF. Trouble-shooting information is

available from the Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) portion of the court’s ECF webpage

(https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html), or from the ECF help desk at (866) 638-7829. 

ORDER, page 2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED. No later than

November 29, 2005, Defendant shall serve answers to the interrogatories and shall produce all

non-privileged documents that are responsive to the discovery requests.

Defendant filed an opposition to the Tentative Order and Order to Show Cause in which he

claims not to have timely received some of the documents that were electronically filed in this

matter. The court will treat Defendant’s opposition as timely based on that representation. 

However, the court expects Defense counsel to take immediate steps to remedy any problems he is

experiencing receiving notices from the court’s Electronic Filing System (“ECF”) and/or retrieving

the noticed filings using PACER. Electronic filing of a document on the court’s ECF system is

sufficient to constitute service on all counsel registered for ECF. (See, GENERAL ORDER 45,

Section IX, a copy of which is available on the court’s website (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov).) 

The court will not allow Defense counsel to artificially impose a hard-copy service requirement on

Plaintiffs’ counsel simply by claiming he failed to receive some of the ECF notices.2

Defendant’s opposition fails to establish any valid reason for Defendant’s failure to

respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. The court does not find the technical defects with

Plaintiffs’ motion papers sufficient to warrant denial of an otherwise meritorious motion. The

only substantial defect was a failure to attach copies of the discovery requests, which defect

Plaintiffs promptly cured in response to the court’s Tentative Order and Order to Show Cause. 

Further, any failure of Plaintiffs to adequately respond to Defendant’s discovery requests does not

relieve Defendant of its obligation to respond to discovery. If Plaintiffs failed to provide adequate

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 32 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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, page 3

responses to discovery requests despite meet and confer efforts, Defendant’s remedy is a motion to

compel. (Defendant’s purported request to compel discovery responses, included in its response to

the order to show cause, is not properly before the court at this time. If Defendant wishes to move

to compel it must comply with the applicable rules for noticing motions, and, if appropriate,

shortening time for any such motion. See, CIVIL L.R. 6 & 7.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants and/or Defense counsel shall reimburse

Plaintiffs for the reasonable fees incurred in bringing this motion to compel. See FED.R.CIV.PRO.

37(d). No later than December 6, 2005, Plaintiffs shall submit a declaration from counsel itemizing

the fees incurred in bringing this motion. No later than December 13, 2005, Defendant may file any

objections it has to the amounts claimed by Plaintiffs.

As noted above, any failure of Plaintiffs to adequately respond to discovery did not relieve

Defendant of its duty to respond to discovery. Thus, Defendant has not shown any substantial

justification its utter failure to respond to the discovery requests, and the court is not aware of any

other circumstances that would make an award of fees unjust. An award of fees is thus mandated. 

See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 37(d) (“the court shall require the party failing to act or the attorney advising

that party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, caused by the failure,

unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an

award of expenses unjust” (emphasis added)). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will send a copy of this order to Defense counsel

on this one occasion to ensure he receives it. However, as discussed above, in the future the court

expects Defense counsel to take all necessary steps to ensure he is properly set up to receive all

notices from the court’s ECF system. Until Defense counsel verifies that he is receiving ECF notices

reliably, he should check the docket regularly.

Dated: 11/22/05

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00279-PVT Document 32 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 3