Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01433/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01433-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RON HUPPERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PITTSBURG, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 05-1433 JL

DISCOVERY ORDER

Granting in part Docket # 55

TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

You are hereby ordered to appear on December 28, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. before this

Court and show cause why you should not be sanctioned in the amount of $7,500 under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37(a)(4)(C) and subjected to issue preclusion

sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) for disobeying a court order.

The Court received Defendants’ letter of December 9, 2005, stating that Plaintiffs did

not submit any of the answers to interrogatories which the court ordered them to produce on or

before November 23 and which Plaintiffs’ counsel represented in open court that he had

produced at the show cause hearing December 7. In addition, the Court had ordered Plaintiffs

to provide substantive responses to Defendants’ requests for admissions and Defendants’

counsel noted in her letter that Plaintiffs’ responses include objections. At the hearing the

Case 3:05-cv-01433-JL Document 56 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 2
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

DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 2

Court will consider whether to find that Plaintiffs by their untimely response have waived all

objections to the RFA’s. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that "[a]ll grounds for objection to an

interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is

waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown." 

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(b)(4) (emphasis added). Plaintiff had an opportunity at the show cause

hearing to explain why they could not answer interrogatories and in fact implied to the Court

that they were providing answers. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have waived all objections to

Defendants’ interrogatories and shall respond in full on or before December 21, 2005 or risk

monetary sanctions as well as issue preclusion sanctions. 

In addition, counsel apparently disobeyed a direct order of the Court and

misrepresented his compliance in open court. This may call for a citation for contempt, with an

appropriate penalty.

In cases where the parties have consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, under

an amendment to 28 U.S.C. §636, magistrate judges have the ability to punish summarily any

misbehavior occurring in their presence; the power is limited only by the fact that the

maximum penalty is a 30-day jail term and a $5,000 fine. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(5) (2000). The

Court is reluctant to impose such a harsh penalty unless it is necessary to remind counsel of

his obligations under the Federal Rules and common civility. The only legitimate excuse would

be that the plaintiffs are unable to produce responses or that imposition of sanctions would be

unjust. FRCP 37(b)(2(E). The Court will hear from the parties on December 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2005 

__________________________________

 James Larson

 Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01433-JL Document 56 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 2