Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01842/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01842-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

 EDS represented, in seeking its expenses incurred to oppose the discovery motion, it had

discounted its requested award to an amount less than its actual expenses in consideration of

plaintiffs' "status as individuals and Plaintiffs' counsel's status as a solo practitioner." Dkt No. 72,

4:13-20, quoting the Declaration of Gregory Mersol in support of the fee request. Plaintiffs assert

no objection to the amount of the award, which Judge Stormes expressly found to be "reasonable."

Dkt No. 72, 4:20.

- 1 - 07cv1842

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL M. CRAM, MINH D. NGUYEN, and

ROES 1 through 10, individually, and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv1842-LAB (NLS)

ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO

ORDER AWARDING

ATTORNEYS' FEES

[Dkt No. 75]

vs.

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS

CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

By Order entered January 8, 2008, Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes granted

defendant Electronic Data Systems Corporation's ("EDS") request for an award of its

attorneys' fees, sought and substantiated in the amount of $2,956.00, incurred to oppose

plaintiffs' unsuccessful Motion To Compel EDS to provide supplemental responses to

interrogatories.1 Dkt No. 72. Judge Stormes had authorized expedited jurisdictional

discovery regarding the amount in controversy in this putative class action EDS had removed

to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 77 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 5
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

 The court sua sponte notes that prior to an amendment effective December 1, 2007, the

pertinent Rule (and the version relied on by plaintiffs and in the challenged Order) provided: "If the

motion is denied, the court . . . shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the moving

party or the attorney filing the motion or both of them to pay to the party or deponent who opposed

the motion the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees,

unless the court finds that the making of the motion was substantially justified or that other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Rule 37(a)(4)(B). The current version of the

Rule appears to strengthen the option to not award fees by adding mandatory language (i.e. "must

not order this payment") associated with the grounds for denial of a fee award. See below. Even

under the current version of the Rule, this court overrules plaintiffs' objections.

- 2 - 07cv1842

("CAFA"). Dkt No. 18. In awarding attorneys' fees reimbursement pursuant to FED. R. CIV.

P. ("Rule") 37(a)(4)(B), Judge Stormes rejected plaintiffs' argument their Motion To Compel

was substantially justified.2

Plaintiffs have timely filed Objections to Judge Stormes' Order asking this court to

"review . . . the question whether Plaintiffs' prior Motion to Compel Interrogatory Answers

was substantially justified, or whether other circumstances make an award [of the opposing

party's expenses] unjust." Dkt No. 75, 2:14-16. A district judge shall consider objections to

magistrate judge orders deciding non-dispositive matters "and shall modify or set aside any

portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be erroneous or contrary to law." Rule 72(a).

This court's Standing Order prescribes it will review such objections, then determine whether

additional briefing or a hearing is needed. Standing Order In Civil Cases ¶ 9. For the

reasons discussed below, the court finds no error in the challenged Order and no need for

additional briefing or a hearing before overruling plaintiffs' Objections.

After the authorized jurisdictional discoverywas completed,plaintiffs moved to compel

EDS to provide a valuation of the injunctive relief portion of the Complaint claims. They

contended EDS' interrogatory responses were incomplete because their calculations

addressed only the monetary damages and wage penalties values placed in controversy by

the Complaint, even though the responses demonstrated plaintiffs' claims more likely than

not well exceeded the CAFA jurisdictional threshold. Plaintiffs also objected EDS relied on

calculations from its personnel and business records they insist are inadequately

authenticated, so the interrogatory responses and supplemental responses are purportedly

"inadmissible evidence," further justifying the Motion To Compel a valuation of the injunctive

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 77 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 5
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 - 07cv1842

relief portion of their claims. Judge Stormes rejected both justifications in denying the motion

and awarding EDS its costs to oppose the motion. This court has elsewhere addressed

plaintiffs' dubious insistence EDS' verified interrogatory responses are "inadmissible" in the

context of this threshold jurisdictional inquiry. 

Under the amendments effective December 1, 2007, awards of attorneys' fees to an

opposing party when a motion to compel disclosures or discovery is denied are governed

by Rule 37(5)(B), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added):

(B) If the Motion Is Denied. If the motion is denied, the

court . . . must, after giving an opportunity to be heard,

require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to

pay the party . . . who opposed the motion its reasonable

expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including

attorney's fees. But the court must not order this payment if

the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances

make an award of expenses unjust.

An award of expenses to a party successfully opposing a motion to compel discovery

is thus mandatory in the absence of "substantial justification" for bringing the motion. In their

Objections to Judge Stormes' Order, plaintiffs defend their motion on grounds they

"reasonably believed that EDS' interrogatory responses were inadmissible." Dkt No. 75, 4:9-

10. Plaintiffs fail to appreciate the procedural posture of the case and the purpose of the

expedited, narrowly-tailored discovery Judge Stormes authorized. As elaborated in her

challenged Order, and by this court in denying plaintiffs' motions to remand and for curative

communication with putative class, the sole discovery objective at this preliminary phase of

the litigation was to inform the question whether remand to state court was necessary due

to a failure of proof EDS could likely satisfy the CAFA amount in controversy based on the

Complaint allegations, and solely through interrogatories limited to ten per side. 

EDS responded to the authorized interrogatories based on the salaries, the likely

overtime compensation should putative class members prevail, and waiting penalty

calculations to arrive at a sum in excess of $7 million placed in controversy by the Complaint

allegations. As noted by Judge Stormes, there was no substantial justification for plaintiffs

to seek a court Order to compel EDS also to place a value on plaintiffs' equitable relief

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 77 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 5
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 - 07cv1842

theories, inasmuch as EDS substantiated from their actual damages and penalty allegations

alone the $5 million threshold is likely amply surpassed for purposes of supporting CAFA

removal. In an attempt to avoid the expenses award, plaintiffs argue "EDS would have [had]

to disclose facts from which the Court would conclude that the cost of injunctive relief would

be nil" (Dkt No. 75, 4:6-7), an unsubstantiated observation having no bearing on the question

presented and reinforcing the superfluousness of plaintiffs' Motion To Compel. In denying

the Motion To Compel, Judge Stormes concluded there was no need to require EDS to

produce any additional information to inform the question whether the Complaint allegations

place in controversy at least $5 million. 

In objecting to the costs award, plaintiffs unpersuasively attempt to bootstrap their

successful ex parte application seeking leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery (Dkt

No. 18) into "substantial justification" or some other "circumstance" that would make the

expenses reimbursement award for the bringing of their unsuccessful Motion To Compel

unjust. Dkt No. 75, 3:1-2 ("The Magistrate Judge erred because Plaintiffs prevailed on the

ex parte application which resulted in the entry of the Order of 3 October 2007"). The

issues associated with the ex parte application and the considerations and consequences

associated with the Motion To Compel are separate and distinct, temporally, substantively,

and legally.

Absent substantial justification or some special circumstance, an Order for the

recovery of costs incurred to oppose an unnecessary discovery motion is appropriate, and

is in fact mandated even in the absence of any wrongful conduct. See Rule 37(5)(B); see

also Reygo Pacific Corp. v. Johnston Pump Co., 680 F.2d 647, 649 (9th Cir. 1982), implied

overruling on other grounds recognized by Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty, Inc., 500 F.3d 1047,

1055 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007). In authorizing limited jurisdictional discovery, Judge Stormes had

emphasized EDS' only burden was to make a showing based on the Complaint allegations

it is more likely than not the amount placed in controversy exceeds the CAFA threshold. Dkt

No. 18, pp. 6-7, citing Singer v, State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir.

1997), Sanchez v. Monumental Life ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996). EDS was

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 77 Filed 01/25/08 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 07cv1842

not required to produce any records to prove or disprove liability to putative class members

or their potential recovery under any particular theory at this stage of the litigation. Plaintiffs'

Motion To Compel unnecessarily sought to expand the scope of the authorized discovery.

In summary, after de novo review, the court finds Judge Stormes reasonably

concluded plaintiffs' Motion To Compel was not meritorious. Her Order awarding EDS its

expenses to oppose the motion is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly,

plaintiffs' Objections to the Rule 37 award of attorneys fees to EDS are OVERRULED, and

the court declines to disturb Judge Stormes' January 8, 2008 Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01842-LAB-NLS Document 77 Filed 01/25/08 Page 5 of 5