Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01373/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01373-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeff Haworth
Plaintiff
Mauna Patel
Defendant
Suryakant Patel
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF HAWORTH, Case No. 1:06-cv-1373-LJO-NEW (TAG)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS

v. TO INTERROGATORIES

(Doc. 16)

SURYAKANT and MAUNA PATEL,

Defendants.

________________________________/ 

Plaintiff Jeff Haworth’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories came on for hearing

on June 25, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. before United States Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner. 

Thomas N. Stewart, III appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff. Frank A. Weiser appeared

telephonically on behalf of Defendants Suryakant and Mauna Patel. The Court has read and

considered the pleadings, considered the arguments of counsel, and makes the following ruling.

Plaintiff moves this Court for an order requiring an order compelling answers to 

Interrogatories (Set One) (the “Interrogatories”) propounded upon Defendant Mauna Patel.

Plaintiff does not seek sanctions. (Court Docs. 16, 18). Defendant Mauna Patel has allegedly

failed to provide responses to the Interrogatories, despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests, and has

failed to respond in writing to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action seeking relief for alleged violations of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq on October 3, 2006. (Court Doc. 1). On

November 27, 2006, Defendants Suryakant Patel and Mauna Patel answered the complaint. (Court

Doc. 6). Discovery cut-off is January 1, 2008, the pretrial conference is set for July 30, 2008, and

Case 1:06-cv-01373-GSA Document 21 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2

trial is set for September 8, 2008. (Court Doc. 15).

On January 4, 2007, Plaintiff served Defendant Mauna Patel with the Interrogatories. 

(Court Docs. 18, 18-2). Defendant Mauna Patel did not respond to the Interrogatories. On May 7,

2007, Plaintiff’s counsel served a Notice of Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, and on

June 6, 2007 he faxed a “meet and confer” letter to Defendants’ counsel. On June 13, 2007,

Defendants’ counsel promised to respond to the motion; however no response was made. On June

19, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel faxed a second “meet and confer” letter to Defendants’ counsel. On

June 19, 2007, Defendant’s counsel left voice mail messages for Plaintiff’s counsel, stating that

(1) he had been sick; (2) the notice did not disclose the time of place of the motion hearing; and (3)

he had a conflict with the hearing; and (4) requesting that Plaintiff’s counsel file documents

showing that Defendants’ counsel was sick. On June 20, 2007, Plaintiff’s ’s counsel faxed

Defendant’s counsel a third meet and confer letter. To date, Defendant Mauna Patel has failed to

respond to the Interrogatories. 

Defendants’ counsel appeared by telephone at the June 25, 2007 hearing on the motion to

compel, and advised the Court that he has been ill. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions, only an order

compelling Defendant Mauna Patel to respond to the Interrogatories that were propounded to her

more than five months ago. 

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

A. Discovery overview

The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair

contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible,” United

States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S.Ct. 983, 987 (1958), and to narrow and clarify

the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 388 (1947).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,

condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity

and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the

Case 1:06-cv-01373-GSA Document 21 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 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

3

court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the

action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be

allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v.

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna

Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990). 

B. Interrogatories

Functions of interrogatories include obtaining evidence, information which may lead to

evidence and admissions, and to narrow issues to be tried. United States v. West Virginia Pulp and

Paper Co., 36 F.R.D. 250, 252 (S.D. N.Y. 1964). The party answering interrogatories must furnish

“such information as is available to the party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)

requires an interrogatory to be answered “fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in

which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent

the interrogatory is not objectionable.” “The party upon whom the interrogatories have been

served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of

the interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). 

“Parties must provide true, explicit, responsive, complete, and candid answers to

interrogatories.” Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp., 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D. Pa. 1996). If a responding

party is unable to supply requested information, “the party may not simply refuse to answer, but

must state under oath that he is unable to provide the information and ‘set forth the efforts he used

to obtain the information.’” Hansel, 169 F.R.D. at 305 (quoting Milner v. National School of

Health Tech., 73 F.R.D. 628, 632 (E.D. Pa. 1977)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 “is to be given a broad and

liberal interpretation in the interest of according to the parties the fullest knowledge of the facts and

of clarifying and narrowing the issues.” West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 36 F.R.D. at 252. 

“All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity. Any

ground not stated in a timely objection is waived . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The propounding

Case 1:06-cv-01373-GSA Document 21 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 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

4

party may seek an order to compel further responses regarding “an objection to or other failure to

answer an interrogatory.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5); see, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(B).

Defendant Mauna Patel has failed to comply with her discovery obligations under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 33 by failing to answer or respond to the Interrogatories. In the absence of these responses,

Plaintiff is unable to effectively prosecute his claims and thus is prejudiced. (Court Doc. 18). 

Plaintiff is entitled to the information that Defendant Mauna Patel has failed to provide. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Defendant Mauna Patel shall provide answers to the

Interrogatories, on or before July 10, 2007. Moreover, any objections to the Interrogatories were

waived by Defendant Mauna Patel’s failure to timely respond to the Interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 33(b)(4). Therefore, Defendant Mauna Patel’s answers to the Interrogatories shall be made

without objection.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to

Interrogatories as follows:

1. The Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories is GRANTED (Court

Doc. 16); and 

2. Defendant Mauna Patel is ordered to serve answers to Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatories, Set One, without objections, on or before July 10, 2005. 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, MONETARY

SANCTIONS, AND/OR A RECOMMENDATION THAT ISSUE OR TERMINATING

SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED AGAINST DEFENDANT MAUNA PATEL. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01373-GSA Document 21 Filed 06/26/07 Page 4 of 4