Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-FILED 5/1/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH PADGETT AND DARLA

PADGETT,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF MONTE SERENO, ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. 04-cv-3946 JW (RS)

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO

COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are two motions to compel filed by plaintiffs Joseph Padgett and Darla

Padgett, one with respect to defendant Lisa Rice, and one with respect to defendant the City of

Monte Sereno. The motions having been fully brief and oral argument having been heard on April

26, 2006, the Court will grant each motion in part and deny each motion in part, as set forth below. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Lisa Rice to Answer Written Discovery, Appear for PreviouslyOrdered Deposition, and Request for Sanctions.

The Padgetts served special interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Lisa

Rice by regular and overnight mail on February 9, 2006. The Padgetts admit that Rice’s responses

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 238 Filed 05/01/06 Page 1 of 7
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

 At the hearing, counsel provided some further explanation that the written discovery was

not timely served as a result of some sort of miscommunication or other inadvertent error. This

explanation addresses the correct issue, but it still falls short of establishing good cause for relief

under Rule 26-2.

2

would not have been due until March 14, 2006, one day after the discovery cut off. Rice did not

respond. 

Local Rule 26-2 provides: “Discovery requests that call for responses or depositions after the

applicable discovery cut-off are not enforceable, except by order of the Court for good cause

shown.” The commentary to the rule warns, “Counsel should initiate discovery requests and notice

depositions sufficiently in advance of the cut-off date to comply with this local rule.”

In their “supplemental” memorandum in support of the motion, the Padgetts argue that there

is “good cause” to enforce this untimely discovery “because the information sought is relevant and

material to the claims in plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.” The brief elaborates as to why the

Padgetts contend the information sought is vital, but there is no explanation as to why the discovery

requests could not have been served timely. This is insufficient. “Good cause” for relief from the

rule requires not only that there be good reason for the questions in the abstract, but good reasons

that they could not have been propounded within the normal time requirements.1

Additionally, it appears that the real issue here is a practical one. Rice has effectively

stopped participating in this litigation for the time being. She is already under court order to appear

for further deposition. Should that deposition go forward, it is likely that the Padgetts will obtain

most, if not all, of the information they are seeking in the written discovery. If Rice continues to

resist complying with her obligation to appear for deposition, it seems unlikely that the Padgetts

would succeed in obtaining answers to the written discovery, even if the Court were to order that the

written discovery be answered.

In view of the fact that the responses to the written discovery were not due until after the

discovery cut off, the motion to compel responses is denied. With respect to the motion to compel

Rice to comply with the Court’s prior order requiring her to appear for further deposition, on April

27, 2006, the Court issued an order to show cause directed at Rice. 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 238 Filed 05/01/06 Page 2 of 7
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

 Request 37 uses “about,” Request 46 uses “concerning.” The terms appear to have

equivalent meanings.

3

The Padgetts’ request for sanctions is denied, on grounds that 1) their motion to compel

answers to written discovery has been denied; 2) sanctions at this juncture would be an ineffective

means of achieving the goal of compelling Rice to complete her deposition, and; 3) the request for

sanctions was not separately noticed as required by Local Civil Rule 7-8.

B. Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Depositions

 1) Request for Production of Documents, Set 2.

a) In General. By the time of the hearing, the parties were in apparent

agreement that the City had essentially complied with its obligation to produce documents

responsive to these requests, and the only major remaining issues were those discussed below. 

Counsel for the Padgetts, however, did raise questions as to whether certain pages were missing

from the City’s production and whether certain documents had been redacted. As discussed at the

hearing, the Court expects the parties to continue to meet and confer to clarify whether any pages

were inadvertently omitted from the production and what, if any, redactions were made. Any

responsive information withheld in whole, or redacted in part, shall be adequately identified on a

privilege log.

b) Time Records. The Padgetts contend that time records of city employees

are within the scope of their document requests because such records are “documents” and are

“communications” between the city and its employees that concern either the “threatening letter” at

the heart of this suit (Request No. 37) or Lisa Rice’s involvement in preparing that letter (Request

No. 46). Although the time records are documents that arguably are “communications,” it goes too

far to say that they are communications “about” or “concerning” the letter or Rice.2

 The time

records are “about” the hours the employees worked each day. That the Padgetts conceivably might

be able to use facts shown in the time records to call into question Rice’s testimony regarding the

circumstances under which the letter was prepared is simply too attenuated to warrant the production

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 238 Filed 05/01/06 Page 3 of 7
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

3

 Whether the time records would be relevant and subject to production under a request

specifically calling for them is not before the Court.

4

of these ancillary materials, particularly in that it is a stretch to claim that the terms used in the

request encompass them. Each time record “concerns” the working hours of an employee, not the

letter or Rice’s involvement in preparing it. As the time records are outside the scope of the

document requests propounded, this aspect of the motion to compel will be denied.3

c) Rice’s Hard Drive. The Padgetts have requested an opportunity to search

the hard drive that apparently was removed from Rice’s computer early during this litigation, or at a

minimum, they want certification that someone “independent” (i.e., someone other than Brian

Loventhal) has searched the drive for responsive documents. As discussed at the hearing, this topic

appears to be subsumed in the matter presently pending before the presiding judge. Unless advised

by the presiding judge or the parties that a question remains for this Court to resolve, no further

action will be taken on that request here.

2. Depositions of Seaman, Wright, and Fabbro

The parties reported at the hearing they have reached agreement to complete these three

depositions.

3. Depositions of Bell and Loventhal

The Padgetts demand up to two additional hours each to complete the depositions of Howard

Bell and Brian Loventhal. The City is only willing to provide Bell for one hour unless Joseph

Padgett agrees to appear for another two hours. The City opposes any further deposition of

Loventhal. 

Having no apparent choice but to decide a matter that should have been resolved by counsel,

the Court rules as follows: The Padgetts may depose Bell and Loventhal for up to two additional

hours each, and defendants may depose Joseph Padgett appears for up to two additional hours. In

each case, questioning up to two hours will be allowed without regard to how much time was

actually used in any of the other depositions. In the event Padgett’s deposition takes place in this

judicial district, the City shall reimburse him for one-half of the cost of the round trip airfare

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 238 Filed 05/01/06 Page 4 of 7
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

4

 The Court has not endeavored to determine which of these, if any, may have already been

answered in whole or in part. While it is not productive to bring a motion to compel without first

determining which questions actually remain in issue, in this case Nesbet will be ordered to answer

all of the questions specified above. Counsel will be free to state an “asked and answered” objection

where appropriate, but that is not a basis for an instruction not to answer.

5

between his residence and this judicial district, based on a reasonably available economy-class fare.

4. Deposition of Nesbet

The Padgetts contend that Barbara Nesbet should be required to appear and answer 27

certified questions that counsel previously instructed her not to answer. The Court’s view, as

discussed at the hearing, and as discussed in its prior order entered February 24, 2006 regarding the

depositions of Curtis Wright and Scott Seaman, is that foundational questions that do not intrude on

the substance of privileged communications are proper. 

At the hearing, the Court requested that it be provided with a complete copy of the transcript

of Nesbet’s deposition, to permit it to review the disputed questions in full context. The Court has

now conducted that review. Although it is not possible to draw a line with scientific precision, the

Court finds that the following certified questions do not impinge on privileged information and must

be answered: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 22, 26, and 27.4

The motion will be denied as to the remaining questions. Nesbet shall appear for further

deposition to answer the questions identified, together with any reasonable follow-up questions,

which likewise shall be limited to foundational matters consistent with this ruling and the Court’s

prior rulings. Counsel are cautioned to exercise the utmost efforts to resolve between themselves

any further disputes that may arise, prior to seeking further court intervention.

 III. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel Lisa Rice to answer written discovery is DENIED. The motion to

compel Lisa Rice to comply with the Court’s prior order to appear for further deposition is

GRANTED, in that the Court has previously issued an order to show cause. The request for

sanctions as to Lisa Rice is DENIED.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 238 Filed 05/01/06 Page 5 of 7
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 6

The motion to compel production of documents and depositions is GRANTED in part, and

DENIED, in part, as set forth with more particularity above.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: May 1, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 238 Filed 05/01/06 Page 6 of 7
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED

TO:

Marwa Elzankaly melzankaly@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com

Joseph C. Howard , Jr jhoward@hrmrlaw.com, tmaster@hrmrlaw.com;

dlongstaff@hrmrlaw.com

James McManis jmcmanis@mfmlaw.com, clarsen@mfmlaw.com; smaes@mfmlaw.com

Christine Peek cpeek@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com

Michael Reedy mreedy@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com

Colleen Duffy Smith cduffysmith@mfmlaw.com, prussell@mfmlaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Dated: 5/1/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 238 Filed 05/01/06 Page 7 of 7