Defense ADA Lawyer Sanction for $1,100

United States District Court,C.D. California.

Roger HAGER

v.

Meadi KARR, et al.

No. CV05-946WMB (RNBX).

Jan. 13, 2006.

Mark D. Potter, Russell C. Handy, San Diego, CA, for Roger Hager.

Raymond Gaitan, Raymond Gaitan Law Offices, Orange, CA, David W. Peters, Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse, San Diego, CA, for Meadi Karr, et al.

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

BLOCK, J.

DOCKET ENTRY

Jazmin Dorado		n/a
Deputy Clerk		Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:		ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None present		None present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)

*1 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, to Produce Requested Documents, to Compel Depositions, and for Sanctions

Subsequent to the issuance and service of the Court's January 12, 2006 Minute Order, the Court received the court copy of the opposition papers which had been filed by defendants on January 11, 2006 in the Clerk's Office in Los Angeles. In its January 4, 2006 Minute Order, the Court expressly had advised the parties that, in accordance with the Central District's filing location policy (per the Notice from the Clerk of Court dated January 24, 2002), the opposition papers and any reply papers should be filed in Santa Ana and conformed courtesy copies thereof should be delivered directly to Judge Block's chambers. Thus, defendants' counsel violated the January 4, 2006 Minute Order in three separate respects: (1) he did not file the opposition papers in a timely manner; (2) he filed the opposition papers in Los Angeles Instead of Santa Ana; and (3) he did not deliver a conformed courtesy copy of the opposition papers directly to chambers.

Although defendants' counsel has purported to proffer an excuse for the belated filing in his accompanying declaration, there is no excuse for his other violations of the January 4, 2006 Minute Order. Nevertheless, based on the medical excuse for the belated filing proffered by defendants' counsel, the Court has decided to vacate its January 12, 2006 Minute Order. However, based on its review and consideration of the moving papers and opposition papers, the Court additionally has decided that neither further briefing nor oral argument will be of material assistance in determining plaintiff's Motion. Accordingly, in lieu of re-setting the Motion for hearing, the Court now rules as follows. See Local Rule 7-15.

1. Defendants' counsel's contention in his December 24, 2005 letter that defendants were relieved of the obligation to respond to plaintiff's discovery because his predecessor and plaintiff's counsel had jointly proposed a November 25, 2005 discovery cut-off date in the Rule 26(f) Report which had been filed back in June is completely untenable. In the first place, the District Judge never adopted that date or set any discovery cut-off date in this matter. Second, the interrogatories and document production requests directed to defendant Karr were served on June 27, 2005, which was months in advance of the discovery cut-off date proposed in the Rule 26(f) Report; and the interrogatories and document production requests directed to defendant Karr also were served in advance of the discovery cut-off date proposed in the Rule 26(f) Report. Third, defendants' counsel's contention cannot be reconciled with the representations he made in his December 7, 2005 letter that he would be providing supplemental documents, and that he also would produce his clients for their depositions if District Judge denied defendants' stay application (as the District Judge subsequently did on December 15, 2005).

*2 2. The record before the Court of correspondence between counsel evidences that, although plaintiff's counsel may originally have agreed to extend until August 31, 2005 the deadline for defendant Karr's discovery responses, he never acceded to the request made by defendants' counsel in his August 31, 2005 letter for a further “day-for-day extension.” Plaintiff's counsel did, on December 8, 2005, unilaterally afford defendant Karr an additional 10 days within which to serve “verified good faith responses,” but defendant Karr never availed himself of that extension. This, despite the fact that the District Judge had denied defendants' stay application prior to the time the 10-day extension ran. Once the District Judge denied the stay application, it would have been prudent for defendants' counsel to seek a brief further extension of time to respond to the outstanding discovery from plaintiff's counsel in the first instance (and then from this Court if plaintiff's counsel had refused). Instead, defendants' counsel chose to take the untenable position that defendants had no obligation to respond to any of the outstanding discovery. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that any objections by defendants to plaintiff's interrogatories and document production requests have been waived. See, e.g., Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir.1992; Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.1981).

3. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories is GRANTED, and defendants are ORDERED to serve full and complete answers, without objections, to each of the previously-served interrogatories within 30 days of the service date of this Minute Order.

4. Plaintiff's Motion to Produce Documents also is GRANTED, and defendants are ORDERED to produce, without objections, all documents in their custody, possession or control responsive to each of the previously-served requests for production within 30 days of the service date of this Minute Order.

5. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions also is GRANTED as follows. Defendants are ORDERED to appear for their depositions at the offices of plaintiff's counsel on the date(s) hereafter noticed by plaintiff's counsel, provided that at least 10 days' notice is given.

6. Plaintiff's request for sanctions also is GRANTED as follows. Within 10 days of the service date of this Minute Order, defendants' counsel, Mr. Peters, is ORDERED to pay plaintiff's counsel the sum of $1,100, which the Court finds to be plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in making the Motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A); Central District Local Rule 37-4.

7. Finally, defendants and their counsel are forewarned that their failure to comply with the foregoing orders not only will expose them to the risk of additional monetary sanctions, but also to the risk of case dispositive sanctions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2), 37(d).

*3 The clerk is directed to serve courtesy copies of this Minute Order on counsel via fax, and to confirm telephonically their receipt of it.

C.D.Cal.,2006.

Hager v. Karr

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 163000 (C.D.Cal.)

Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)

2:05cv00946 (Docket) (Feb. 07, 2005)