Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02266/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02266-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENINCASA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 RAIDER JEAN, L.L.C.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-02266 JSW

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTE AND ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

The Court has received the letter by Plaintiffs outlining the parties’ discovery dispute

regarding Plaintiffs’ request for further responses to their First Set of Interrogatories, Nos. 1, 5,

and 9, and First Set of Request for Production of Documents, Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 

Despite numerous requests by Plaintiffs to meet and confer and have Defendant contribute to the

letter addressing the discovery dispute, Defendant does not appear to have cooperated or

complied with the Civil Local Rules or this Court’s Standing Order. Having reviewed the

parties’ positions, the Court has determined that a hearing on this dispute is unnecessary.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s responses to these interrogatories and requests for

production are incomplete. Upon review of the requests and responses, the Court concurs with

Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to file further responses.

Plaintiffs further contend that Defendant’s responses inappropriately contain objections

that were waived. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant filed responses months after the deadline

to respond had passed. Objections to interrogatories and requests for production that are not

timely served are waived unless a party’s failure to object is excused by the Court upon a 

Case 3:05-cv-02266-JSW Document 37 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2

showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); see also Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154,

1160 (9th Cir. 1981); Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th

Cir. 1992). Defendant has not made any showing of good cause to excuse its failure to timely

object. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has waived all objections to these

interrogatories and requests for production except for objections based on attorney-client

privilege. The Court ORDERS that Defendant shall serve amended responses that are fully

responsive without any objections, with the exception of based on attorney-client privilege, by

no later than April 28, 2006. If Defendant withholds information or documents based on the

attorney-client privilege, Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with a privilege log.

Finally, it appears as though Defendant failed to comply with the Civil Local Rules and

this Court’s standing orders requiring the parties to meet and confer. This Court’s Standing

Orders further requires that the parties file a joint letter addressing the parties’ relative positions

in a discovery dispute. Defendant did not do so. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Defendant to

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Civil Local

Rules and this Court’s Standing Order. If Defendant does not provide good cause for its failure

to comply, the Court will impose sanctions in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for

the cost of bringing this discovery dispute to the Court’s attention. Plaintiff shall file a

declaration by no later than April 14, 2006 demonstrating the cost it incurred in presenting this

discovery dispute to the Court. Defendant shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by

no later than April 28, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02266-JSW Document 37 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2