Borges v. County of Mendocino

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 9, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-04537
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANN MARIE BORGES, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04537-SI

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 90 10 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, 11 Defendant.

12 13 The parties have submitted a discovery dispute regarding the adequacy of plaintiffs’ 14 responses to the County’s requests for admissions and interrogatories, as well as whether plaintiffs 15 are required to respond to the County’s second set of special interrogatories. The Court has reviewed 16 the discovery requests and plaintiffs’ responses, and rules as follows: 17 1. For any requests for admission where plaintiffs responded “unable to admit or deny,” 18 plaintiffs shall provide amended responses that “state in detail why the answering party 19 cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” It is improper to simply respond “unable to admit or 20 deny.” See generally Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 36(a)(4); Asea Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. 21 Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs are advised that if they do not 22 provide sufficient amended responses, it is within the Court’s discretion to deem matters 23 admitted. See id. 24 2. Any responses that cross-reference other discovery responses or documents without 25 identifying Bates numbers (e.g. Borges’ Response to Special Interrogatory No. 9) are 26 improper and shall be supplemented with substantive responses and Bates numbers. 27 3. A number of requests for admission and interrogatories asked plaintiffs about their 1 their class-of-one claim, evidence that is necessary to satisfy plaintiffs’ burden of proof. 2 Plaintiffs generally responded that they “do[] not have this information” (e.g., Borges’ 3 Responses to Special Interrogatories 2-5) and yet also explained their denials to certain 4 requests for admission by stating “Plaintiff are aware of other approved applicants with 5 transfers.” Borges’ Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory No. 11. These answers 6 appear to be inconsistent, and if plaintiffs are aware of other applicants they must provide 7 specific answers that provide information about those applicants. Plaintiffs are directed 8 to supplement their answers to provide fulsome, responsive answers. Plaintiffs are 9 further advised that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides that a party’s 10 failure to disclose or supplement information will result in that party being precluded 11 from using that information on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial, unless that failure was 12 substantially justified or harmless. This sanction applies to failures to supplement 13 discovery responses in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). See Fed. 14 R. Civ. Proc. 37(c)(1); see also Hoffman v. Constr. Prot. Servs., Inc., 541 F.3d 1175, 3 15 1179 (9th Cir. 2008); Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 a 16 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 17 4. On December 20, 2021, the County propounded a second set of special interrogatories. 18 Plaintiffs objected on the ground that the responses would be due after the January 17, 19 2022 discovery cut-off. The Court agrees with plaintiffs that this second set was 20 untimely and plaintiffs need not provide substantive responses. 21 Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses shall be provided no later than February 18, 2022. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. “ Sn Mle 25 Dated: February 9, 2022 SUSAN ILLSTON 26 United States District Judge 27 28