Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02154/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02154-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1 The court relied upon the following statements by defendant:

(1) “Del Taco attempted to meet and confer with Sanford both by telephone

and by letter, but received no response. Declaration of Lisa A.

Mathaisel (“Mathaisel Decl.”), ¶¶ 6, 7, Exhibit 5 attached thereto.”

Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreements, at p. 2.

(2) “On June 7, 2005, I prepared and sent a letter to Mr. Sanford’s counsel,

Lynn Hubbard, requesting a meet and confer teleconference regarding Mr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEL TACO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. S-04-2154 GEB PAN 

ORDER

—NFN—

On August 5, 2005, the court granted defendant’s

discovery motion on the merits and found that plaintiff was

unjustified in his opposition, thus warranting an award of

defendant’s reasonable fees and costs. The court’s finding

depended in part upon defendant’s representations that plaintiff

refused to participate in the conference required by E. D. Cal.

L. R. 37-251(b).1 Those representations have proven inaccurate. 

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 39 Filed 08/18/05 Page 1 of 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

Sanford’s responses to the Interrogatories. A true and correct copy of

my June 7, 2005, letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. In the letter,

I requested that Mr. Hubbard contact me at his convenience at any time

on June 8, 2005, or the afternoon of June 9, 2005. Having not heard from

Mr. Hubbard, I placed a call to him on June 10, 2005. I was put through

to his voice mail, where I left him a message requesting that he contact

me in order to meet and confer regarding his client’s response to the

Interrogatories.” Declaration of Lisa A. Mathaisel in Support of Joint

Statement Regarding Motion to Compel, at ¶¶ 6 and 7.

2

See Defendant’s Declaration in Support of Fee Award (Docket #34),

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration (Docket

#35), Plaintiff’s Declaration in support thereof (Docket #36),

and Defendant’s Declaration in Opposition to the ex parte

application (Docket #37). 

Accordingly, I hereby vacate this court’s August 5, 2005,

award of attorney fees and costs. The remainder of the order,

granting the motion to compel plaintiff’s response to defendant’s

Interrogatory No. 19, remains intact.

So ordered.

Dated: August 17, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02154-GEB-EFB Document 39 Filed 08/18/05 Page 2 of 2