Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03078-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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 The categories of discovery in this order track

Document No. 444.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES

HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND,

et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ADVANCE BUILDING

MAINTENANCE,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-3078 CW (BZ)

TWELFTH DISCOVERY ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions

relating to the discovery dispute resolved by Order dated

April 5, 2010, Doc. No. 445.1

 Under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(a)(5)(C) “if the motion [to compel] is granted in

part and denied in part, the court . . . may, after giving an

opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for

the motion.” Fees should not be awarded where “the opposing

party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was

substantially justified” or “other circumstances make an award

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 446 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 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

2

of expenses unjust.” Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(ii), (iii). 

 I find that Nolin’s responses and objections to the

discovery requests on the grounds of privacy were made without

substantial justification. In a similar case, Judge Wilken

ruled that plaintiffs had an obligation to trace assets. Bd.

of Trustees for the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for

Northern California v. Hill, 2008 WL 5047705, *6 (N.D.Cal.

2008). By Order dated October 6, 2009, I overruled Nolin’s

privacy objections, finding that documents concerning

Advance’s dividend distributions and compensation paid to

Nolin were not protected by Nolin’s right to privacy. Doc.

No. 424 at 4. Further, I ordered defendants to “produce

documents consistent with this order.” Id. at 6. Nolin now

asserts the same privacy objections. I find that Plaintiffs

are entitled to their fees associated with the portion of the

motion to compel that Nolin resists on the grounds of privacy. 

 As I did not rule in plaintiffs’ favor regarding

documents concerning the disposition of Advance’s assets,

plaintiffs are not entitled to fees for that portion of the

motion. 

Plaintiffs are entitled to fees for the part of the

motion related to “Alternative Sources of Funds.” I find that

Nolin’s response to the discovery requests regarding this

topic was inadequate to answer all four disputed requests. 

Opposition at 13. I find that Nolin did not have substantial

justification to believe that his very brief answer in a

deposition mooted the two requests for production and two

interrogatories. 

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 446 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Finally, I find that plaintiffs are not entitled to fees

regarding Interrogatory No. 23. While I ordered Nolin to

respond to that interrogatory, neither party submitted any

authority for their respective positions. As neither party’s

briefing was helpful in resolving this particular dispute, I

find that plaintiffs are not entitled to fees in connection

with Interrogatory No. 23. 

Plaintiffs’ request for fees under Rule 37 is GRANTED IN

PART and IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs submit a request for

fees consistent with this Order and in accordance with Civil

Local Rule 54-5(b) by APRIL 15, 2010. Any request for

additional sanctions is DENIED. 

Dated: April 5, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\CA.SERVICE EMPLOYEES\DISC ORDER 12.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-03078-CW Document 446 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 3