Borges v. County of Mendocino
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-04537
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Borges v. County of Mendocino, Judge Illston ordered discovery supplements but excused plaintiffs from answering the County’s untimely interrogatories.
The plaintiffs must supplement specified discovery responses, while County of Mendocino cannot require substantive responses to its untimely second set of special interrogatories.
What happened
In Borges v. County of Mendocino, the parties disputed whether the plaintiffs’ responses to the County’s requests for admissions and interrogatories were adequate and whether they had to answer a second set of interrogatories.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to explain responses saying they were unable to admit or deny, provide Bates numbers when referring to other discovery or documents, and give fuller information about other applicants relevant to their class-of-one claim. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have to provide substantive answers to the County’s second set of special interrogatories because the County served them too late.
Judge Susan Illston required the plaintiffs’ supplemental responses by February 18, 2022, and warned that inadequate supplementation could lead to matters being deemed admitted or information being barred from use later in the case.
The detailed version
- Borges v. County of Mendocino · No. 3:20-cv-04537
- Susan Illston
- Feb. 9, 2022
Background
The parties submitted a discovery dispute concerning the adequacy of plaintiffs’ responses to the County’s requests for admission and interrogatories. They also disputed whether plaintiffs had to respond to the County’s second set of special interrogatories.
Court’s rulings
The court ordered plaintiffs to amend any request-for-admission responses stating “unable to admit or deny” so that each response explains in detail why the responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny the request. The court said that simply using that phrase was improper and warned that insufficient amended responses could allow the court to deem the matters admitted.
The court also ruled that responses cross-referencing other discovery responses or documents without identifying Bates numbers were improper. Plaintiffs must supplement those responses with substantive answers and Bates numbers.
Several discovery requests sought information about plaintiffs’ class-of-one claim. The court noted that plaintiffs sometimes said they did not have the requested information while also stating that they knew of other approved applicants who received transfers. The court found those answers appeared inconsistent and directed plaintiffs to provide complete, specific information about any such applicants. The court further warned that failing to disclose or supplement information could prevent plaintiffs from using that information in a motion, hearing, or trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.
The County served its second set of special interrogatories on December 20, 2021. Because the responses would have been due after the January 17, 2022 discovery cutoff, the court agreed that the second set was untimely and ruled that plaintiffs need not provide substantive responses to it.
Result
Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses were due no later than February 18, 2022. The order resolved the discovery dispute by requiring supplementation for specified responses while relieving plaintiffs of the obligation to provide substantive responses to the untimely second set of special interrogatories.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.