Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06268/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06268-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 Plaintiff also filed a motion for relief from the requirements of Civil Local Rule 37-2 1

(requiring a moving party to address each request separately in a motion to compel) which the court

hereby grants.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

REZA NAGAHI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07-6268 PVT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

DISCOVERY AND TO DETERMINE

SUFFICIENCY OF AN ANSWER OR OBJECTION

On July 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery and to

Determine Sufficiency of an Answer or Objection. Defendants opposed the motion. Having 1

reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order without

oral argument. Based on the briefs and arguments submitted, and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, and Defendants’

objections are OVERRULED as untimely. Plaintiff served his discovery requests on Defendants by

mailing them to Defense counsel on January 29, 2010. On February 19, 2010, Defendants served

responses on Plaintiff in which they did not provide any substantive information, instead objecting

on the erroneous grounds that the requests had not been served by the January 29, 2010 deadline

Case 5:07-cv-06268-EJD Document 170 Filed 07/24/10 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 See FED.R.CIV.P.5(b)(2)(C); see also, Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513, 1515 n.1 (9 Cir. 2 th

1994).

ORDER, page 2

because the they were postmarked January 30, 2010. Defendants did not assert any other objections

in their responses, stating only that they “reserve all other objections.” Rather than moving to

compel, Plaintiff filed a application for a retroactive one day extension to serve his discovery. On

February 22, 2010, this court issued an order finding Plaintiff’s application moot because service

was effective on the date he mailed the requests, not the postmark date. Despite the court’s ruling 2

that the requests had been timely served, Defendants waited almost another month to serve

supplemental responses on Plaintiff. In their supplemental responses, they belatedly attempted to

assert objections that had not been included in their prior responses. At no time did Defendants seek

any extension of time for responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. 

In opposing Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants waived all objections that they had not

timely asserted in response to the discovery requests, Defendants again claim that they somehow

“reserved” those objections. Defendants cite no legal authority for this baseless contention. On the

contrary, both the rules and the case law interpreting them make clear that all objections must be

timely asserted, and may not be unilaterally “reserved.” See Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 33(b)(4) (“Any ground

not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure”),

34(b)(2)(B) (“. . . or state an objection to the request, including the reasons”) & 36(a)(5) (“The

grounds for objecting to a request must be stated.”); see also Safeco Ins. Co. of America v.

Rawstrom, 183 F.R.D. 668, 671-72 (C.D.Cal. 1998) (“Objections not interposed in a timely initial

response may not be held in reserve”) and Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d

1468, 1473 (9 Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within

th

the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent they have not yet done so, no later than

August 3, 2010, Defendants shall supplement their responses to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery

requests, including all responsive information reasonably available to them. Each Defendant must

serve a separate response to each discovery request propounded to that Defendant, including the

requests for admission. While a request might be phrased “collectively,” it is not a foregone

Case 5:07-cv-06268-EJD Document 170 Filed 07/24/10 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

ORDER, page 3

conclusion that each Defendant would give the same response. Plaintiff is entitled to be informed of

each Defendant’s individual response (even if they all turn out to be the same). 

Dated: 7/23/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-06268-EJD Document 170 Filed 07/24/10 Page 3 of 3