Pallazhco v. Acevedo
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:21-cv-00378
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Pallazhco v. Acevedo, Judge Corley granted sanctions requiring the plaintiff’s counsel to pay $770 for missed discovery deadlines.
The Law Offices of Theida Salazar, as Plaintiff’s counsel, must pay Defendant A. Acevedo $770 in reasonable attorney fees within 30 days.
What happened
In Pallazhco v. Acevedo, Defendant A. Acevedo sought sanctions after Plaintiff did not timely answer interrogatories and requests for documents. The defendant later withdrew a related motion to compel after Plaintiff’s counsel said responses would be served, but continued seeking fees.
The court found that Plaintiff’s counsel missed two discovery deadlines and did not respond to the defendant’s follow-up email. It rejected the explanation that counsel had been unable to meet with Plaintiff because Plaintiff was incarcerated, finding that counsel’s failure to respond was not substantially justified.
Judge Corley granted the sanctions motion and ordered the Law Offices of Theida Salazar to pay $770 in the defendant’s reasonable attorney fees within 30 days. The amount covered 3.5 hours of work at $220 per hour spent preparing the motion to compel.
The detailed version
- Pallazhco v. Acevedo · No. 3:21-cv-00378
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Feb. 8, 2022
Background
Defendant A. Acevedo moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d). The defendant had served Plaintiff Ricardo Pallazhco with interrogatories and requests for production on September 21, 2021. Responses were initially due October 25, and the defendant agreed to extend the deadline to November 24.
After Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to a December 8 email asking when the discovery responses would be provided, the defendant filed a motion to compel and a motion for sanctions on December 23. Plaintiff’s counsel later represented that the discovery responses would be served by January 31, 2022. The defendant withdrew the motion to compel but continued seeking monetary sanctions.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 37(d) permits sanctions when a party fails to serve answers, objections, or written responses to properly served interrogatories. The rule generally requires the court to order the party who failed to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay reasonable expenses caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award unjust.
The defendant’s counsel provided the required statement that she had tried in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action. Plaintiff’s counsel said he had been unable to meet with Plaintiff because Plaintiff was incarcerated. Counsel also admitted that he did not respond to the December 8 email because he was working on other cases and trying to arrange an appointment with Plaintiff.
The court found that counsel’s failure to respond after missing two discovery deadlines was not substantially justified. It also found no other circumstance making an award against Plaintiff’s counsel unjust. The court noted that the exhibits showed the earliest request by Plaintiff’s counsel for an appointment with Plaintiff was November 3, after the first discovery deadline.
The court further found the required causal connection between the misconduct and the requested fees. The defendant’s counsel had performed 3.5 hours of work solely to obtain the requested discovery through the motion to compel. The court found both the 3.5 hours and the $220 hourly rate reasonable.
Disposition
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted Defendant A. Acevedo’s motion for sanctions. The court ordered the Law Offices of Theida Salazar to pay the defendant’s reasonable attorney fees of $770 within 30 days. The order stated that it disposed of Docket No. 13.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.