Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01938/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01938-11/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES M. LANIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OFFICIALS 

ASSOCIATION, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-CV-01938-EPG

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 49, 52)

Plaintiff James M. Lanier (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”) on 

December 4, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 

2000d against the San Joaquin Valley Officials Association and the individual members of the 

Association‟s Board of Directors (collectively, the “Defendants”). Id. 

On August 10, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, 

Request to Produce, Request for Admissions and Request for Sanctions, (ECF No. 46), which is now 

before this Court.

On July 18, 2016, the Court held a mid-discovery status conference and granted Plaintiff James 

Lanier permission to file a motion to compel “regarding Defendants’ tax documents, assignment reports, 

and board member/assignment supervisor member lists.” (ECF No. 43.) The Court further set a 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 56 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 6
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

30

discovery hearing for August 23, 2016 and ordered the parties to file a joint statement regarding any 

discovery disputes in conformance with Local Rule 251(c) no later than August 19, 2016. 

On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Additional Discovery requesting: (1) 

1099 information from all individual Defendants for the years 2010 through 2015; (2) assignment 

records from all Defendants for the 2015-2016 season; (3) a complete history of Defendant San Joaquin 

Valley Officials Association’s (“SJVOA”) assignor-supervisor positions and board of director positions; 

(4) email communications between Plaintiff and Defendant Kayajanian in July, August, and September 

2013; (5) email communications between Defendant Kayajanian and all other board members regarding 

Plaintiff’s business proposal; and (6) all minutes from SJVOA board meetings in July, August, and 

September 2013.

At the August 23, 2016 hearing, the Court set a briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel and informed Plaintiff that although his motion was not timely filed, the Court would consider 

his motion with respect to Defendants’ tax records. The Court also reminded the parties that the nonexpert discovery cutoff date in the case had been set on August 15, 2016 and that no further discovery or 

discovery motions would be entertained. 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

1 Both parties have submitted briefing 

on the issues and the Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without further oral 

argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Based on a review of the pleadings and the arguments 

submitted by the parties on the record, the Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Compel Additional Discovery Responses.

District courts have “wide latitude to determine the scope of discovery.” Gucci Am., Inc. v. 

Guess?, Inc., 790 F.Supp.2d 136, 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), quoting In re Agent Orange Prod. Liability 

Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 103 (2d Cir. 2008). To exercise that authority, Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure allows courts to create scheduling orders that limit the amount of time parties have to 

complete discovery and file motions regarding that discovery. Once a scheduling order has been set, the 

“schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

 

1 Defendants have also filed a motion to compel, which includes a request for sanctions. (ECF No. 46.) That motion is 

discussed in a separate order.

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 56 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 6
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

30

“[G]ood cause primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Where the “moving party fails to 

demonstrate diligence, ‘the inquiry should end.’” Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 

(S.D. Cal. 2012), quoting Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d at 609. “[I]gnorance of the law is not 

good cause for modification,” nor does a moving party’s “incarcerated, pro se status,” constitute good 

cause. Gorton v. Bick, No. 1:05-CV-00354-DLB PC, 2011 WL 345855, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011), 

citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of 

procedure that govern other litigants”). 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff offers no justification for his lack of diligence in seeking the 

requested documents before the close of discovery (or even by the briefing deadline set by the Court) 

and thus has not demonstrated good cause to allow further discovery. The record makes clear that 

Plaintiff has known of at least some of the requested documents since December 10, 2015, when he first 

served requests for production on Defendant SJVOA.

2

 (Joint Scheduling Report 1:21-24, 2:7-24, ECF 

No. 32.) Despite this fact, Plaintiff has waited until August 2016, nine months later, to seek production.3

Given this lack of diligence in the discovery process, the Court finds no good cause to allow Plaintiff to 

conduct further discovery. Gil v. Woodend, No. 1:09-cv-00917 DLB (PC), 2013 WL 4517828, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013) (discovery request filed 9 months after close of discovery denied as 

untimely); Gucci, 790 F.Supp.2d at 139 (“Where a party is aware of the existence of documents or other 

information before the close of discovery and propounds requests after the deadline has passed, those 

requests should be denied”); Cont’l Indus., Inc. v. Integrated Logistics Solutions, LLC, 211 F.R.D. 442, 

444 (N.D. Okla. 2002) (discovery request filed “six months after discovery cutoff . . . waived any 

discovery violations through unreasonable delay”); Buttler v. Benson, 193 F.R.D. 664, 666 (D. Colo. 

2000) (“A party cannot ignore available discovery remedies for months and then, on the eve of trial, 

move the court for an order compelling production”). 

Nor would it be fair to require Defendants to respond to further discovery at this late date. The 

 

2

Plaintiff appears to have only sought discovery from Defendant SJVOA, not the individual Defendants.

3 The Court also notes that, with the exception of the tax documents, Plaintiff did not raise these discovery issues in the 

Court’s discovery status conferences on March 30, 2016 or July 18, 2016. (ECF Nos. 31, 43.)

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 56 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 6
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

30

purpose of setting a time limit on discovery “is to assure both sides an opportunity immediately before 

trial to engage in orderly, final trial preparation, uninterrupted by a flurry of ‘midnight’ discovery.” King 

v. Georgia Power Co., 50 F.R.D. 134, 135-36 (N.D. Ga. 1970). Allowing further discovery at this point 

would frustrate both this purpose and the “obligation of the court ‘to secure the just, speedy and 

inexpensive determination of every action.’” Gault v. Nabisco Biscuit Co., 184 F.R.D. 620, 622 (D. Nev. 

1999), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To the extent that Defendants originally had an obligation to produce 

these documents (and the Court does not find, at this juncture, that they did), Plaintiff’s failure to seek 

disclosure of the documents in a timely fashion has waived any objections he may have had. Buttler, 193 

F.R.D. at 666 (“plaintiff’s unexplained delay in seeking court assistance to obtain the documents now at 

issue . . . raises the inference that the plaintiff is not as concerned with obtaining the documents as he is 

with ‘holding in abeyance a putative discovery violation’ for the strategic purpose of using it late in the 

proceedings as a basis to prevent defendants from defending the claims against them”); Glesenkamp v. 

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 71 F.R.D. 1, 3 (N.D. Cal. 1974) aff’d, 540 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1976) 

(“plaintiff’s failure to discover any facts in support of her claim for fraud in a year and a half . . . 

convinces the Court that allowing additional discovery would not serve the interests of justice”).

Moreover, the Court finds that an order compelling disclosure of these documents would be 

unjustified, in any case. Plaintiff asks for:

1. Documents providing 1099 information for each individual Defendant;

2. Electronic assignment records for each individual Defendant for the 2015-2016 season;

3. Defendant SJVOA’s history of assignor-supervisor and board of director membership 

list;

4. Email communications between Plaintiff and Defendant Kayajanian regarding Plaintiff’s 

business proposal(s);

5. Email communications between Defendant Kayajanian and other members of the Board 

of Directors regarding Plaintiff’s business proposal(s); and,

6. Minutes for SJVOA board meetings for July, August, and September 2013.

Plaintiff contends that he needs Defendants’ 1099 information to demonstrate disparities in pay 

within the SJVOA and to show that Defendants are well compensated for their service in the SJVOA. 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 56 Filed 09/13/16 Page 4 of 6
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

30

Defendant SJVOA, the party on whom the request was served, has previously produced W-2 forms 

showing the amounts paid to each individual Defendant by the SJVOA. Plaintiff has been unable to 

articulate any reason that the W-2 forms are inadequate to provide the information he seeks. The Court 

thus sees no need to require further discovery on this topic. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties may 

obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”).

Plaintiff does not provide any basis for requesting electronic assignment records for the 2015-

2016 season, nor does he explain: (1) whether he asked Defendants for this information previously; (2) 

how they responded; or (3) why any response by Defendants is deficient. Absent any of this 

information, Plaintiff’s request must be denied. Womack v. Virga, Case No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFP 

P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (“The party seeking the motion to compel 

discovery has the burden of informing the court why the defendants’ objections are not justified or why 

the defendants’ responses are deficient.”); Ellis v. Cambra, Case No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 

2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. March 27, 2008) (“If Defendant objects to one of Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests, it is Plaintiff’s burden on his motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is 

not justified. Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to 

compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the Court why the information sought is relevant and 

why Defendant’s objections are not justified.”).

Plaintiff’s request for Defendant SJVOA’s history of assignor-supervisors and board of directors 

memberships is similarly denied. Defendants contend that this is the first they have heard of any such 

request and Plaintiff does not attach the requests he served on Defendant SJVOA to demonstrate 

otherwise. Nor does he explain what he requested or how Defendants responded. 

Plaintiff offers no reason why the Court should compel production of Defendant Kayajanian’s 

emails, either to Plaintiff or to other board members. There is no indication that these documents were 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 56 Filed 09/13/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

30

previously requested or how Defendants responded to those requests.4 Moreover, Plaintiff already has 

access to emails between him and Defendant Kayajanian; it makes little sense to compel Defendants to 

produce items that Plaintiff already possesses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (courts should consider “the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information” in crafting the scope of discovery). That said, emails 

between Defendant Kayajanian and other board members regarding Plaintiff’s business proposal are 

arguably relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Although the Court has the discretion to deny this request, the 

Court will require Defendants to produce these documents, to the extent that they were previously 

requested and have not yet been produced, within 10 days of this Order.5

Finally, Defendants have already produced minutes for SJVOA board meetings for July, August, 

and September 2013. Defendants also attach a copy of the minutes produced to their opposition. (ECF 

No. 52.) The Court is satisfied that Defendants have complied with this discovery request. Jimena v. 

UBS AG Bank, Case No. 1:07-cv-00367-OWW-SKO, 2010 WL 4363193, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 

2010) (“The fact that a party may disbelieve or disagree with a response to a discovery request . . . is not 

a recognized ground for compelling discovery, absent some indication beyond mere suspicion that the 

response is incomplete or incorrect.”), quoting Gray v. Faulkner, 148 F.R.D. 220, 223 (N.D. Ind. 1992).

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Compel Additional Discovery against Defendant 

SJVOA (ECF No. 49) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

4

It is also not clear whether these requests were served on Defendant Kayajanian or Defendant SJVOA. 

5

If Defendants require additional time to produce any such documents, they should meet and confer with Plaintiff to request 

an extension and notify the Court of any extension.

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 56 Filed 09/13/16 Page 6 of 6