Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02582/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02582-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:30104 Marine Personal Injury - Jones Act

---

1 

15cv2582-CAB (BLM) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM J. CANNON, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

AUSTAL USA LLC AND UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv2582-CAB (BLM) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART THIRD 

PARTY DEFENDANT AUSTAL USA, 

LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

[ECF No. 64] 

Currently before the Court is Third Party Defendant Austal USA, LLC’S April 4, 2017 motion 

to compel [ECF No. 64-1 (“MTC”)], Defendant United States of America’s April 7, 2017 opposition 

to the motion [ECF No. 65 (“Oppo.”)], and Third Party Defendant Austal USA, LLC’S April 11, 

2017 reply [ECF No. 69 (“Reply”)]. For the reasons set forth below, Austal’s motion to compel 

is GRANTED IN PART. 

BACKGROUND 

On March 30, 2017, counsel for Defendant Austal USA LLC, Mr. Rudy Huerta Lopez, and 

counsel for Defendant United States of America, Mr. Frank J. Anders, jointly contacted the court 

regarding a discovery dispute. ECF No. 61. In regard to the dispute, the Court issued a briefing 

schedule and the parties timely filed their motion, opposition, and reply. See Id.; see also MTC, 

Oppo, and Reply. 

Case 3:15-cv-02582-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 04/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

15cv2582-CAB (BLM) 

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

RELEVANT DISCOVERY BACKGROUND 

On January 27, 2017, Austal served seven requests for production (Set 3), nine 

interrogatories (Set 3), and sixteen requests for admission (Set 4) on Defendant USA via 

electronic mail and United States First Class Mail. MTC at 2; see also ECF No. 64-2, Declaration 

of Douglas L. Brown (“Brown Decl.”) at Exhibit 1. 

Fact discovery closed in the instant matter on February 27, 2017. MTC at 2; see also ECF 

No. 51 at 2. 

On March 1, 2017, Defendant USA objected to the January 27, 2017 discovery requests 

stating that: 

The United States objects to this request since Austal failed to initiate this request 

a sufficient period of time in advance of the fact discovery cut-off date, so that it 

may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, 

notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since 

Austal served this discovery by Mail on the United States on January 27, 2017, the 

United States has 33 days to serve responses (see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d)), which is 

March 1, 2017. However, the Court’s Order dated September 26, 2016, states, “All 

fact discovery shall be completed by all parties on or before February 27, 

2017.”Completed" means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a 

sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed 

by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice, and response 

as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Since Austal failed to provide 

sufficient time for the United States to serve a response, taking into account the 

times for service, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the United States is not required to provide a response. Although Austal 

also e-mailed this discovery to counsel for the United States, the United States has 

never consented in writing nor in any other manner to acceptance of service by 

electronic means (see Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(E)) for these discovery requests, and 

therefore this e-mailing does not constitute service by electronic means. For the 

above-listed reasons, the United States provides no response to this discovery 

request. 

Oppo. at 3-4. 

THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT AUSTAL USA, LLC’S MOTION 

Austal seeks an order from the Court requiring Defendant USA “to provide full and 

complete responses to its requests for production (Set 3) and its interrogatories (Set 3) and 

Case 3:15-cv-02582-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 04/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

15cv2582-CAB (BLM) 

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

deeming its requests for admission (Set 4) admitted because the United States refused to 

respond within thirty (30) days of service.” MTC at 2, 4. Austal argues that Defendant USA 

incorrectly contends that since it did not consent to electronic service in writing under FRCP 

5(b)(E), it was not required to respond to Austal’s discovery requests. Id. at 2. Austal argues 

that by registering as a Filing User for the Court’s Case Management Electronic Case Filing 

System (“CM/ECF”) in accordance with Civil Local Rule (“CivLR”) 5.4, Defendant USA has 

consented to electronic service. Id. Austal further argues that since CivLR 5.4d is unambiguous 

and Defendant USA consented to electronic service for all purposes when it registered for 

electronic case filing, Austal’s January 27, 2017 discovery requests were complete when emailed 

and Defendant USA’s responses were due on February 27, 2017. Id. at 3. Austal reasons that 

even if CivLR 5.4d did not require Defendant USA to accept electronic service, the fact that 

Defendant USA has consistently used e-mail to send and receive documents and discovery in 

this matter estops Defendant USA from arguing that it has not consented to electronic service. 

Id. at 3-4. 

DEFENDANT USA’S OPPOSITION 

Defendant USA objects to Austal’s request and asks the Court to deny Austal’s motion for 

the following reasons. First, Defendant USA informed the parties in this matter that it “does not 

accept service by e-mail or fax.” Oppo. at 3; see also ECF No. 65-1, Declaration of Vickey L. 

Quinn (“Quinn Decl.”) at Exhibit A. Given Defendant USA’s notice, the fact that FRCP 5 requires 

written consent for electronic service, and that neither CivLR 5.4 nor case law requires Defendant 

USA to accept electronic service for discovery, Austal’s position that Defendant USA impliedly 

consented to electronic service is incorrect and contrary to the law. Oppo. at 6. Second, the 

case Austal cites to in support of its position, Greenly v. Lee, 2008 WL 298822 (E.D. Cal. 2008), 

relies on a local rule for the Eastern District of California that is irrelevant to the instant Southern 

District matter. Oppo. at 5. Defendant USA contends that a more relevant and applicable case 

is Carroll v. County of San Diego, 2014 WL 4185530 (S.D. Cal. 2014) where the Court “held that 

e-mail does not constitute proper service in the absence of written consent” and Judge 

Sammartino rejected the argument that consenting to using the Court CM/ECF system 

Case 3:15-cv-02582-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 04/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

15cv2582-CAB (BLM) 

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

constituted consenting to e-mail service. Oppo. at 5. Finally, Defendant USA contends that in 

order to complete discovery in a timely fashion, Austal had to initiate its discovery early enough 

that it would be completed in advance of the discovery deadline taking into account time for 

service, notice, and response which it failed to do. Id. at 3. 

THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT AUSTAL USA, LLC’S REPLY 

Austal replies that Defendant USA’s reliance on Carroll, 2014 WL 4185530 is misplaced 

because it dealt with service of an amended complaint, not routine discovery, and did not 

consider whether CivLR 5.4 required consent to “Electronic Service of all documents.” Reply at 

2. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

FRCP 5(b)(2)(E) states that a paper is served by “sending it by electronic means if the 

person consented in writing--in which event service is complete upon transmission, but is not 

effective if the serving party learns that it did not reach the person to be served.” FRCP 

5(b)(2)(E). The rule continues on to say that “[i]f a local rule so authorizes, a party may use 

the court's transmission facilities to make service under Rule 5(b)(2)(E).” FRCP 5(b)(3). 

CivLR 5.4 states: 

a. Scope of Electronic Case Filing. Except as prescribed by local rule, order, or 

other procedure, the Court has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic 

Filing System. Unless otherwise expressly provided in the Court’s Electronic Case 

Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, the Court’s Local Rules, or in 

exceptional circumstances preventing a registered user from filing electronically, 

as of November 1, 2006 all petitions, motions, memoranda of law, or other 

pleadings and documents to be filed with the Court by a registered user in 

connection with a case assigned to the Electronic Filing System must be 

electronically filed. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all attorneys admitted 

to practice before the Southern District of California must register for Electronic 

Case Filing. 

b. Consequences of Electronic Filing. Electronic transmission of a document 

to the Electronic Filing System in the manner prescribed by the Court’s 

Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, together with the transmission of 

an NEF from the Court, constitutes filing of the document for all purposes of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, and constitutes 

entry of the document on the docket kept by the Clerk in accordance with Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 58 and 79. 

Case 3:15-cv-02582-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 04/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

15cv2582-CAB (BLM) 

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

c. Service of Pleadings and Documents Filed Electronically. The NEF that 

is automatically generated by the Court’s Electronic Filing System constitutes 

service of the filed document on Filing Users. Parties who are not Filing Users must 

be served with a copy of any pleading or other document filed electronically in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and these Local Rules. A 

certificate of service is required when a party electronically files a document, and 

must state the manner in which service or notice was accomplished on each party. 

d. Consent to Electronic Service. Registration as a Filing User constitutes 

consent to Electronic Service of all documents as provided in this General Order 

and in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. 

CivLR 5.4 

DISCUSSION 

 The Court finds that CivLR 5.4 governs the service of documents filed on the CM/ECF 

system and does not encompass discovery that is served on parties without a court filing. Even 

if registering as a Filing User on CM/ECF and agreeing to electronic service did apply to discovery 

as Austal argues, CivLR 5.4c states that “[t]he NEF that is automatically generated by the Court’s 

Electronic Filing System constitutes service of the filed document on Filing Users.” Here, there 

is no NEF constituting service of the discovery at issue, because discovery is not intended to be 

filed on the CM/ECF system. The Court does not find Austal’s argument and citation to Greenly 

to be persuasive as Greenly relies on a Local Rule for the Eastern District of California which is 

not applicable to the instant matter. 2008 WL 298822 at * 1. Because Defendant USA did not 

consent in writing to the service of discovery by email and, in fact, clearly stated it would not 

accept such service, Austal’s electronic service is improper and its service by mail is untimely.1 

 Despite Austal’s error in attempting to serve its discovery requests on Defendant USA by 

e-mail, and the Court’s requirement that parties to take into account the time for service and 

response when propounding discovery, the Court finds that in the interests of justice and 

                                                      

1 In addition to serving the requests by e-mail, Austal served the discovery by United States First 

Class Mail on January 27, 2017 before the end of fact discovery which closed on February 27, 

2017. MTC at 2. This means that Defendant USA’s responses to the discovery were due thirtythree days later on March 1, 2017, two days after the close of discovery. Oppo. at 4; see also 

FRCP 6(d). 

Case 3:15-cv-02582-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 04/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

15cv2582-CAB (BLM) 

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

fairness, Defendant USA must respond to the discovery requests at issue. See Bonavito v. 

Nevada Prop. 1 LLC, 2014 WL 5364077, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2014) (stating that since “[t]he 

failure to account for 33 days to respond here was not excessive [] the Court would likely have 

been inclined to excuse the failure” if plaintiff had not waited so long to file his motion to compel) 

(citing Bishop v. Potter, 2010 WL 2775332 (D. Nev. July 14, 2010) (“[w]hile discovery requests 

should generally be served at least 33 days prior to the close of discovery, this requirement is 

not absolute. The Court can excuse the failure ... if it is not excessive.”)). Accordingly, Austal’s 

motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant USA must serve its responses, and may assert 

appropriate objections, to Austal’s seven requests for production (Set 3), nine interrogatories 

(Set 3), and sixteen requests for admission (Set 4) on or before May 12, 2017. Austal’s request 

that the Court deem its sixteen requests for admission (Set 4) admitted is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 4/14/2017 

Case 3:15-cv-02582-CAB-BLM Document 70 Filed 04/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6