Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02042/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02042-16/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

L.H., A.Z., D.K., and D.R., 

on behalf of themselves and all

other similarly situated juvenile

parolees in California,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-2042 LKK GGH

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for May 17, 2007,

was plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with this court’s April 2, 2007 order. Maria Morris

appeared for plaintiffs. Michelle Angus, Stephen Acquisto, and Katherine Nelson represented

defendants. Having heard oral argument and reviewed the joint statement, the court now issues

the following order.

Plaintiffs’ motion concerns this court’s April 2, 2007 order, wherein defendants’

request for extension of time to respond to discovery requests was denied. The court directed

defendants to file and serve responses by April 9, 2007. All objections which were not privilege

based, e.g., attorney-client privilege, bona fide privacy privilege assertions, or work product

immunity, were found to be waived. 

Case 2:06-cv-02042-LKK-DAD Document 117 Filed 05/21/07 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

2

Plaintiffs now contend that defendants have delayed production of discovery to

such an extent that they have exhibited bad faith, and sanctions are warranted. According to

plaintiffs, although defendants did serve responses on the ordered date, they asserted objections

to almost every interrogatory, request for admission, and request for documents, in direct

violation of that order. Plaintiffs claim that more than a month after the court’s denial, discovery

responses are still outstanding. Plaintiffs request monetary and issue sanctions.

Plaintiffs fail to recognize the efforts undertaken by defendants to comply with the

court’s order. Defendants have produced 10,000 pages of documents which is not necessarily a

small amount for a class action. Defendants represent that this production constitutes the

majority of hard copy documents responsive to plaintiffs’ 124 document requests. Defendants

indicate that they have been amending their responses pursuant to the court’s prior order. 

Additionally, defendants represent that they have increased the number of attorneys working on

this case from two to five, and also have a paralegal assigned to it. 

While compliance with the court’s orders are not subject to unilateral

modification by defendants, some recognition of the realities of discovery in this case are

required. Defendants (in reality, the state agencies which have control over plaintiffs) are not

litigating machines, nor are their responsibilities primarily concerned with responding to

discovery requests. Rather, a state agency’s resources are characterized by the phrase, “zero sum

game,” in which tasks imposed by litigation necessarily reduce the ability of an agency to carry

out its primary responsibilities. Make no mistake, the undersigned is not excusing discovery

obligation non-compliance, but rather simply encouraging plaintiffs to have a little empathy in

that discovery is relatively easy to request, and sometimes onerous to satisfy. 

Therefore, the court declines to find bad faith or even prejudice to plaintiffs’ case

at this point in time. Nevertheless, empathy has its limits; discovery is outstanding in violation

of the previous order. Should defendants fail to comply with the instant order requiring full

production within thirty days, plaintiffs may bring another motion for sanctions. At that time, if

Case 2:06-cv-02042-LKK-DAD Document 117 Filed 05/21/07 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

3

the court finds that defendants have not complied with this order, serious sanctions will result.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel compliance with this court’s April 2, 2007 order,

filed April 19, 2007, is granted in part and denied in part;

2. Defendants shall file a schedule for production of outstanding discovery

within two days of the May 17, 2007 hearing.

3. Defendants shall produce all outstanding discovery, including electronic

discovery, within thirty days of the May 17, 2007 hearing. Failure to comply with this order will

result in sanctions.

DATED: 5/21/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

L.H.2042.ord

Case 2:06-cv-02042-LKK-DAD Document 117 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 3