Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00805-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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 JOSE DIVISION

PAMELA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GYRUS ACMI, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-00805 BLF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REPORT NO. 4

Re: Dkt. 161

In Discovery Dispute Report 4, defendant Gyrus ACMI, LP (GALP) seeks an order 

requiring plaintiff Pamela Williams to respond to its second set of document requests and third set 

of interrogatories without objection. GALP also points out that plaintiff failed to timely respond 

to its related second set of requests for admission (RFAs). But, defendant does not seek an order 

compelling plaintiff to respond to those RFAs because defendant contends that the matters stated 

in those RFAs have been deemed admitted.

As has become the practice in this case, Discovery Dispute Report 4 was unilaterally filed 

by defendant, followed by a separate opposition from plaintiff, despite the undersigned’s Standing 

Order re Civil Discovery Disputes requiring a joint discovery report. Defendant says that it was 

not for lack of trying. GALP points out that it scheduled the requisite in-person meet-and-confer 

for October 19, 10:30 a.m. at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square Hotel, 333 O’Farrell Street

in San Francisco---a date, time, and place agreed to by plaintiff. Defense counsel says she flew to 

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 200 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 4
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

San Francisco, stayed overnight, and waited at the appointed time and place for an hour, but 

plaintiff never showed. Plaintiff does not dispute defendant’s version of events.

With respect to the document requests and interrogatories at issue: Defendant says that it 

personally served these requests on September 2, 2016, but that plaintiff did not respond by the 

October 3, 2016 deadline. Defendant also states that plaintiff ignored subsequent October 10, 

2016 meet-and-confer correspondence re her failure to respond to the document requests and 

interrogatories. Thereafter, says defendant, came the failed attempt to meet-and-confer with 

plaintiff in person on October 19, 2016. It also says that plaintiff refused an offer to include her 

position statement in a joint discovery report. The instant unilaterally-filed discovery report 

followed on October 21, 2016, the last day to file such discovery disputes with the court.

If a party fails to timely respond to discovery requests, any objections she might have 

asserted are waived. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 

(9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time 

required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds 

for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely 

objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.”).

In her opposition papers, filed on October 31, 2016, plaintiff states that she “has complied 

with all of the discovery requests from Defendants.” (Dkt. 176). That cursory assertion, however,

says nothing about whether plaintiff, in fact, timely responded to the document requests and 

interrogatories in question. Nor does it aid this court’s analysis in determining whether there is 

good cause to excuse the failure to timely respond. Plaintiff otherwise argues that defendants 

failed to cooperate in the preparation of a joint case management statement prior to a conference 

before Judge Freeman. She also complains that defendants have not returned documents that she 

says are privileged. This court declines to address these latter two arguments because they are 

irrelevant to the matters at hand in the present discovery dispute report.

This court nevertheless may, on its own, limit discovery if, among other things, the 

discovery is outside the scope permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

(b)(2)(C)(iii). Here, defendant’s request for discovery in response to Interrogatory 19 is denied. 

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 200 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 4
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

That interrogatory, which seeks the identity (name, address, and age) of plaintiff’s daughter, is 

seemingly outside the scope of discovery permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Additionally, defendant having correctly taken the position that the matters in the related 

second set of RFAs are deemed admitted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3), this court sees no need to 

require plaintiff to answer Interrogatory 17 as pertains to GALP’s second set of RFAs. 

Interrogatory 17 seems to require an answer only if the related RFAs are “not unqualifiedly 

admitted.” (Dkt. 161-1, Ex. C at 27). Plaintiff nevertheless must answer Interrogatory 17 insofar 

as that interrogatory asks about her responses to GALP’s first set of RFAs.

Accordingly, GALP’s request for an order compelling plaintiff to produce documents and 

answer interrogatories is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

 Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatory 17 as pertains to her responses to GALP’s first set of 

RFAs. GALP’s request to compel an answer to Interrogatory 17 as pertains to its second

set of RFAs is denied as moot.

 GALP’s request to compel an answer to Interrogatory 19 is denied.

 Except as otherwise set out above, plaintiff shall serve (1) all documents responsive to 

GALP’s second set of document requests and (2) complete answers to GALP’s third set of

interrogatories no later than December 9, 2016.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 200 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

5:14-cv-00805-BLF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Glenn Lansing Briggs gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com, vbeechler@kadingbriggs.com

Kymberleigh Damron-Hsiao kdh@kadingbriggs.com, mrogers@kadingbriggs.com, 

smohammadi@kadingbriggs.com, vbeechler@kadingbriggs.com

Pamela Williams Pam.Williams1001@gmail.com

5:14-cv-00805-BLF Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:

Pamela Williams

909 Marina Village Parkway #292

Alameda, CA 94501

Case 5:14-cv-00805-BLF Document 200 Filed 12/01/16 Page 4 of 4