1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM, No. 2:23-cv-01089 WBS AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RACK MEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to discovery. 19 ECF No. 33. This discovery motion was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. 20 R. 302(c)(1). Plaintiffs and defendants, through counsel, filed the required joint statement. ECF 21 No. 37. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration. ECF No. 38. The matter was taken 22 under submission. ECF No. 34. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. 23 I. Relevant Background 24 This is a trademark case that was initially filed in June of 2023. Defendant filed an 25 answer and counterclaims. ECF Nos. 8. A scheduling conference was initially set for October, 26 10, 2023 before Senior District Judge William B. Shubb. ECF No. 4. Following motions to 27 dismiss the counterclaims, the initial scheduling conference was re-scheduled twice, ultimately to 28 be set on March 11, 2024. ECF No. 24. A Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) joint status report was submitted 1 on February 26, 2024, and a schedule was issued on February 27, 2024. ECF Nos. 31, 32. The 2 scheduling order indicates that the parties had already exchanged initial disclosures, and set a fact 3 discovery deadline of September 12, 2025. ECF No. 32 at 2. Plaintiff filed the instant motion to 4 compel on March 7, 2024. ECF No. 33. 5 II. Motion to Compel 6 A. Overview of Dispute 7 Plaintiff Material Handling Systems (“Material”) moves the court to compel defendant 8 and counterclaimant Rack Men Equipment Company, Inc. (“Rack Men”) to provide complete 9 responses, without objections, to its Rule 34 Requests for Documents and Rule 33 Interrogatories 10 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, arguing they were served via hand service on the afternoon of 11 September 20, 2023 after the parties’ second of two Rule 26(f) conference calls. Material 12 contends the conferences occurred on the mornings of September 11, 2023 and September 20, 13 2023, and that responses to the interrogatories were due on or before October 20, 2023. ECF No. 14 33 at 2. Rack Men argues that Material did not engage in 26(f) conferences before it served the 15 interrogatories, that Material did not properly meet and confer in compliance with Local Ruel 16 251(b) before filing its motion, and in any case, that the motion is moot because it served 17 responses on March 13, 2024. Id. at 9. According to the joint statement, “[t]he matters to be 18 decided on this motion include: a) confirmation that Plaintiff’s discovery requests served on 19 September 20, 2023, were properly served in a timely manner consistent with Rule 26(d); and, b) 20 confirmation that Defendant must provide full and complete responses to the Requests for 21 Production and Interrogatories without objections.” Id. at 12. 22 B. Standard on Motion to Compel 23 The scope of discovery in federal cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 26(b)(1). A party seeking to compel discovery has the initial burden to establish that its request is 25 proper under Rule 26(b)(1). If the request is proper, the party resisting discovery has the burden 26 of showing why discovery was denied; they must clarify and support their objections. 27 Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). General or boilerplate objections, 28 without explanation, are not prohibited but are insufficient as a sole basis for an objection or 1 privilege claim. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 2 1149 (9th Cir.2005). 3 C. Discussion 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) governs the timing of discovery, and provides: 5 “A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by 6 Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or 7 when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1) provides that “parties must confer as soon as practicable 9 – and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling 10 order is due under Rule 16(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1). District courts have “broad discretion to 11 manage discovery.” Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). 12 In this case, the motion to compel does not establish that the parties had completed their 13 Rule 26(f) conferences before the interrogatories were served, or that the parties properly met and 14 conferred before the motion to compel was filed. The parties’ accounts about their meet and 15 confer process, as well as their scheduling conferences, are in total conflict with one another and 16 the submission of the parties’ email exchanges demonstrates only that the parties were not and 17 have not been in agreement about the status of discovery. ECF No. 38. Indeed, an email sent by 18 Rack Men’s counsel on October 17, 2023 indicates that it received the interrogatories from 19 Material but asked if they were sent in error because they had not yet agreed on a discovery plan 20 or concluded their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) obligations. ECF No. 38-1 at 5. Material’s counsel 21 responded that they had completed their 26(f) conference, and went on to state that the parties 22 “agreed that each side would be allowed to propound up to 75 interrogatories, rather than the 25 23 set forth in the FRCP.” ECF No. 38-1 at 4. Rack Men’s counsel responded in relevant part, “We 24 did not agree. You verbally proposed it over the phone, but there was no such agreement on our 25 end. We also did not and would not agree to triple the Interrogatories while maintaining the same 26 timeline to respond.” Id. at 3. Material’s counsel responded that the parties did agree to the 75 27 interrogatories, and that Rule 26(f) did not require the parties to “actually reach any final 28 agreement” for the conference to prompt the beginning of discovery. ] Material’s argument is untenable and defeats the spirit and purpose of the Rule 26(f) meet 2 || and confer rule. Under Material’s proposed construction, a party could simply conclude its Rule 3 || 26(f) obligations were satisfied upon any communication between the parties and demand to 4 || immediately proceed with discovery.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM, No. 2:23-cv-01089 WBS AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RACK MEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to discovery. 19 ECF No. 33. This discovery motion was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. 20 R. 302(c)(1). Plaintiffs and defendants, through counsel, filed the required joint statement. ECF 21 No. 37. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration. ECF No. 38. The matter was taken 22 under submission. ECF No. 34. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED. 23 I. Relevant Background 24 This is a trademark case that was initially filed in June of 2023. Defendant filed an 25 answer and counterclaims. ECF Nos. 8. A scheduling conference was initially set for October, 26 10, 2023 before Senior District Judge William B. Shubb. ECF No. 4. Following motions to 27 dismiss the counterclaims, the initial scheduling conference was re-scheduled twice, ultimately to 28 be set on March 11, 2024. ECF No. 24. A Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) joint status report was submitted 1 on February 26, 2024, and a schedule was issued on February 27, 2024. ECF Nos. 31, 32. The 2 scheduling order indicates that the parties had already exchanged initial disclosures, and set a fact 3 discovery deadline of September 12, 2025. ECF No. 32 at 2. Plaintiff filed the instant motion to 4 compel on March 7, 2024. ECF No. 33. 5 II. Motion to Compel 6 A. Overview of Dispute 7 Plaintiff Material Handling Systems (“Material”) moves the court to compel defendant 8 and counterclaimant Rack Men Equipment Company, Inc. (“Rack Men”) to provide complete 9 responses, without objections, to its Rule 34 Requests for Documents and Rule 33 Interrogatories 10 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, arguing they were served via hand service on the afternoon of 11 September 20, 2023 after the parties’ second of two Rule 26(f) conference calls. Material 12 contends the conferences occurred on the mornings of September 11, 2023 and September 20, 13 2023, and that responses to the interrogatories were due on or before October 20, 2023. ECF No. 14 33 at 2. Rack Men argues that Material did not engage in 26(f) conferences before it served the 15 interrogatories, that Material did not properly meet and confer in compliance with Local Ruel 16 251(b) before filing its motion, and in any case, that the motion is moot because it served 17 responses on March 13, 2024. Id. at 9. According to the joint statement, “[t]he matters to be 18 decided on this motion include: a) confirmation that Plaintiff’s discovery requests served on 19 September 20, 2023, were properly served in a timely manner consistent with Rule 26(d); and, b) 20 confirmation that Defendant must provide full and complete responses to the Requests for 21 Production and Interrogatories without objections.” Id. at 12. 22 B. Standard on Motion to Compel 23 The scope of discovery in federal cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 26(b)(1). A party seeking to compel discovery has the initial burden to establish that its request is 25 proper under Rule 26(b)(1). If the request is proper, the party resisting discovery has the burden 26 of showing why discovery was denied; they must clarify and support their objections. 27 Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). General or boilerplate objections, 28 without explanation, are not prohibited but are insufficient as a sole basis for an objection or 1 privilege claim. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 2 1149 (9th Cir.2005). 3 C. Discussion 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) governs the timing of discovery, and provides: 5 “A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by 6 Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or 7 when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1) provides that “parties must confer as soon as practicable 9 – and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling 10 order is due under Rule 16(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1). District courts have “broad discretion to 11 manage discovery.” Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). 12 In this case, the motion to compel does not establish that the parties had completed their 13 Rule 26(f) conferences before the interrogatories were served, or that the parties properly met and 14 conferred before the motion to compel was filed. The parties’ accounts about their meet and 15 confer process, as well as their scheduling conferences, are in total conflict with one another and 16 the submission of the parties’ email exchanges demonstrates only that the parties were not and 17 have not been in agreement about the status of discovery. ECF No. 38. Indeed, an email sent by 18 Rack Men’s counsel on October 17, 2023 indicates that it received the interrogatories from 19 Material but asked if they were sent in error because they had not yet agreed on a discovery plan 20 or concluded their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) obligations. ECF No. 38-1 at 5. Material’s counsel 21 responded that they had completed their 26(f) conference, and went on to state that the parties 22 “agreed that each side would be allowed to propound up to 75 interrogatories, rather than the 25 23 set forth in the FRCP.” ECF No. 38-1 at 4. Rack Men’s counsel responded in relevant part, “We 24 did not agree. You verbally proposed it over the phone, but there was no such agreement on our 25 end. We also did not and would not agree to triple the Interrogatories while maintaining the same 26 timeline to respond.” Id. at 3. Material’s counsel responded that the parties did agree to the 75 27 interrogatories, and that Rule 26(f) did not require the parties to “actually reach any final 28 agreement” for the conference to prompt the beginning of discovery. ] Material’s argument is untenable and defeats the spirit and purpose of the Rule 26(f) meet 2 || and confer rule. Under Material’s proposed construction, a party could simply conclude its Rule 3 || 26(f) obligations were satisfied upon any communication between the parties and demand to 4 || immediately proceed with discovery. While the court declines to give an advisory opinion on 5 || when a 26(f) conference can be deemed “completed” as a general matter, it is clear in this case 6 || that the parties did not adequately complete their Rule 26(f) conference, nor did they properly 7 || meet and confer with respect to their Local Rule 251 discovery obligations before this motion was 8 | brought. The court rejects Material’s suggestion that Rack Men has waived all objections by not 9 || timely responding to the interrogatories. The interrogatories were issued months before the court 10 || issued a schedule in this case, and there are more than 17 months remaining before fact discovery 11 | closes. Under these conditions, the court concludes that Material seeks an unsound solution to a 12 || non-existent problem. 13 In any event, it does not matter whether the interrogatories were prematurely served; they 14 || have been served and defendant has answered them. The court will not compel any further action 15 || and finds that Rack Men has not waived any objections by submitting their answers on March 13, 16 | 2024. 17 HI. Conclusion 18 The motion to compel at ECF No. 33 is DENIED. The interrogatories at issue are deemed 19 || served, but defendant is not required to provide any supplemental responses on the grounds 20 || presented in plaintiffs motion. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | DATED: April 9, 2024 ~ 23 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28