Debeaubien v. State of CA ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PHILIP DEBEAUBIEN, No. 2:19-cv-1329 WBS DB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, CHP 14 LIEUTENANT TODD BROWN, CHP SERGEANT REGGIE WHITEHEAD, 15 CHP CHIEF BRENT NEWMAN, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On October 15, 2021, this matter came before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 19 302(c)(1) for hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 92.) Attorney Stewart Katz 20 appeared via Zoom on behalf of the plaintiff. Attorney Jianlin Song appeared via Zoom on behalf 21 of defendant Joy Graf. 22 “The discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely unsupervised by the 23 district court.” Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018). 24 Despite this truism, this is the sixth time the undersigned has resolved a discovery dispute in this 25 action. (ECF No. 82 at 4.) And it is the sixth time plaintiff’s argument has proven meritorious. 26 Here, plaintiff’s motion seeks to compel interrogatory responses concerning defendant 27 Graf’s financial status in light of plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. During the course of oral 28 argument the undersigned expressed an inclination to grant plaintiff’s motion for the reasons 1 expressed in the parties’ Joint Statement. See generally United Artists Corporation v. United 2 Artist Studios LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-0828 MWF MAAx, 2020 WL 5370615, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 3 Apr. 27, 2020) (“It is well established that a defendant’s current net worth and financial condition 4 is clearly relevant to the issue of punitive damages.”); E.E.O.C. v. California Psychiatric 5 Transitions, 258 F.R.D. 391, 394-95 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“the majority of federal courts” have held 6 that “a plaintiff seeking punitive damages is entitled to discover information relating to the 7 defendant’s financial condition in advance of trial without making a prima facie showing that he 8 is entitled to recover such damages”). 9 In response, defense counsel requested that the court narrow the interrogatories in several 10 specific respects. First, such an argument should have been fully articulated in the Joint 11 Statement. Raising this request at oral argument in absence of full briefing undermines the ability 12 to fully analyze the request. Second, plaintiff’s counsel explained that plaintiff had already 13 agreed narrow the interrogatories to reflect defendant’s request. That assertion is supported by 14 the parties’ Joint Statement. (ECF No. 102 at 9.) In response, defense counsel stated that they 15 were now willing to produce responses. 16 The hearing of a discovery dispute consumes considerable time, resources, expenses, etc., 17 for the parties and the court. A court which “has consistently carried one of the highest weighted 18 caseloads per judge in the nation[.]” Shields v. Amerigas Propane, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-0754 KJM 19 EFB, 2015 WL 5436772, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2015). To expend such time and resources on 20 a matter the parties could have resolved through closer attention to detail and better 21 communication is disappointing. 22 And this is not the first-time defendants’ conduct has been found wanting. The 23 undersigned previously issued monetary sanctions against defendants “in light of defendants’ 24 repeated obstruction of discovery, failure to adequately support its objections, and failure to 25 demonstrate substantial justification or special circumstances[.]” (ECF No. 82 at 5.) Although 26 that sanction was levied against different defendants and different defense counsel, the 27 undersigned remains concerned about defendants’ apparent habit of unnecessary delay and waste 28 of resources. 1 Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, 2 | and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing and above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 3 that plaintiff’s September 14, 2021 motion to compel (ECF No. 92) is granted and defendant shall 4 | produce responses within fourteen day of the date of this order. 5 || Dated: October 18, 2021 6 7 g ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.civil debeaubien1329.0ah.101521 28