Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02903/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02903-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Harkless
Counter Defendant
Pacific Power and Light
Counter Claimant

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

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES HARKLESS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-CV-2903-TLN-DMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action. 

Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted and for 

sanctions. See ECF No. 29. The motion was heard on February 19, 2020, before the undersigned 

in Redding, California. Cathleen Barr, Esq., and Brandon Storment, Esq., appeared for plaintiff. 

Ana Reeg, Esq., appeared for defendant PacifiCorp (erroneously sued as Pacific Power and Light 

and hereinafter referred to as “defendant”). After hearing the parties’ argument, the matter was 

submitted. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:18-cv-02903-DAD-DMC Document 45 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 5
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

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

This action was initiated in the Siskiyou County Superior Court and removed to 

this Court by defendant. See ECF No. 1 (notice of removal). Defendant invokes the Court’s 

diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff is a citizen of California, defendant is an Oregon 

corporation with its headquarters in Oregon, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. 

See id. at 2-3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Plaintiff alleges that he was hired by defendant in January 2005 as a lineman. See

id. at 7 (Exhibit A to notice of removal, plaintiff’s complaint filed in state court). Plaintiff states 

he was discharged in October 2014. See id. According to plaintiff, he was injured on the job on 

December 30, 2011, and was off work for approximately a year, returning on December 20, 2012. 

See id. at 8. Plaintiff states that he returned to work “with some minor restrictions that required 

incidental accommodation.” Id. 

Next, plaintiff states:

During the course of 2013 and 2014, Plaintiff became involved in a 

union grievance that was still ongoing at the time of his termination. The 

termination happened on October 23, 2014, without warning and not as a 

result of some incident. Plaintiff was simply informed that his employer was 

not willing to accommodate any job restrictions even though by that time 

Plaintiff could perform all parts of his duties except climbing polls [sic], 

something linemen are rarely called upon to do in this day and age.

Id.

Plaintiff states he filed a timely complaint with California’s Department of Fair Employment and 

Housing (DFEH) on May 27, 2015, and that DFEH sent him a right-to-sue letter on July 19, 

2016. See id.

Based on these allegations, plaintiff asserts the following legal claims:

Claim I Discrimination based on physical disability and failure to engage 

in the interactive process in violation of California Gov’t Code 

§ 12940(m).

Claim II Failure to reasonably accommodate in violation of California 

Gov’t Code § 12940(m).

Claim III Disparate treatment based on physical disability in violation of 

California Gov’t Code § 12940(a).

/ / /

Case 2:18-cv-02903-DAD-DMC Document 45 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 5
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

Claim IV Retaliation in violation of California Gov’t Code § 12940(h).

Claim V Wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

See ECF No. 1, pgs. 8-15.

II. SUMMARY OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE

The current discovery dispute concerns plaintiff’s requests for admissions, set two. 

Plaintiff served requests for admissions, set two, on October 2, 2019. See ECF No. 35, pgs. 13-

19 (Exhibit A to the declaration of Claire Weglarz, Esq., filed in opposition to plaintiff’s motion). 

On November 1, 2019, defendant served responses consisting of boilerplate objections. On 

January 17, 2020, defendant served further responses to plaintiff’s requests for admissions, set 

two. See Id. at 25-42 (Exhibit D to the declaration of Claire Weglarz, Esq., filed in opposition to 

plaintiff’s motion). 

Plaintiff’s motion, which was filed January 17, 2020 – the same day defendant’s 

served further responses – challenges the sufficiency of defendant’s November 1, 2019, initial 

responses. 

III. DISCUSSION

Requests for admissions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. 

Under Rule 36, a responding party must admit or deny a request for admission, see Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 36(a)(4), or the responding party may object, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5). If a matter is not 

admitted, the responding party’s answer must specifically deny the admission or state in detail 

why it cannot admit or deny. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). “A denial must fairly respond to the 

substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only 

part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” Id. 

When a responding party objects, “[t]he grounds for objecting to a request must be stated.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5). A response must be signed by either the party or its attorney. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (underlining added). 

Case 2:18-cv-02903-DAD-DMC Document 45 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Under Rule 36(a)(6), the requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency 

of an answer or objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). If the court finds an objection 

unjustified, it must order the responding party to answer. See id. If the court finds that an answer 

does not satisfy Rule 36(a)(4), “the court may order either that the matter is admitted or that an 

amended answer be served.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) applies to an award of expenses. See id. 

In the instant motion, plaintiff challenges defendant’s initial responses served on 

November 1, 2019, which, as plaintiff states, contains only boilerplate objections. The matter, 

however, appears now to be moot given defendant’s further responses served on January 17, 

2020, which answers each of the requests for admissions. 

In his reply brief, plaintiff argues that defendant “does not attempt to defend its 

non-responses to discovery.” ECF No. 39, pg. 1. This is understandable given that defendant 

served further responses in which it answered plaintiff’s requests for admissions. Plaintiff also 

argues in his reply brief that, despite service of further responses by defendant, sanctions are still 

warranted because “defendant did not attempt to respond to discovery until after the motion was 

filed.” Id. at 2. The Court agrees with this latter point. 

As indicated above, Rule 37(a)(5)’s provision regarding awarding expenses 

applies to motions under Rule 36. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). Under Rule 37(a)(5), the court 

must award reasonable expenses to the moving party if its motion is granted or if discovery was 

provided after its motion was filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). Under the spirit of this rule, the 

moving party is entitled to recover its expenses where it is forced to file a discovery motion in 

order to obtain discovery. While the record in this case reflects that defendant served its further 

responses on the say day plaintiff filed his motion, the court nonetheless finds that but for the 

filing of the motion, defendant would not have provided further responses. To the point, at the 

hearing defendant’s counsel stated that defendant does not feel any urgency in responding to 

discovery until there is a threat of a motion to compel. The Court finds this tactic to be dilatory 

and warrants the award of reasonable expenses to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a 

declaration documenting reasonable expenses. See ECF No. 43.

Case 2:18-cv-02903-DAD-DMC Document 45 Filed 03/09/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Finally, plaintiff argues in his reply brief “the ‘responses’ that defendant produced 

after this motion was filed are still non-responses.” ECF No. 39, pg. 4. The sufficiency of 

defendant’s further responses served on January 17, 2020, is an issue not currently before the 

court because the instant motion challenges the initial responses, there has been no meet-andconfer process with respect to the further responses, and no joint statement setting forth the 

parties’ respective positions regarding defendant’s further responses has been filed. To the extent 

plaintiff believes defendant’s further responses are insufficient, plaintiff may file a new motion to 

compel.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 29) is denied to the extent the Court will not at 

this time order that matters are deemed admitted;

2. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 29) is granted to the extent the Court will 

award reasonable expenses to plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5); and

3. Plaintiff is awarded $2,300.00 in reasonable expenses, payable by 

defendant within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Dated: March 9, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02903-DAD-DMC Document 45 Filed 03/09/20 Page 5 of 5