Gosain v. Berquist Wood McIntosh Seto LLP

Background

The court addressed three discovery letters involving disputes over the plaintiffs’ discovery conduct. The disputes concerned the plaintiffs’ failure to provide verified supplemental answers to requests for documents and interrogatories, the cancellation of depositions, incomplete disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, a canceled inspection of property in Orinda, California, documents produced piecemeal by non-party witness Neil Ison, and allegedly deficient discovery responses served on defendants Bergquist Wood McIntosh Seto LLP, Bruce McIntosh, and Stephen Seto.

Rajiv Gosain, who was identified as the manager of plaintiff Happy Valley Road LLC, submitted declarations citing health problems and the death of his father on July 21, 2022. The plaintiffs also said that Gosain would be unavailable for at least four months because of religious duties and travel. The court noted that the plaintiffs had effectively acknowledged that Gosain could not currently participate in discovery. The plaintiffs had made some supplemental email production, but they had not timely served the required verified supplemental responses.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ discovery responses were deficient. Their interrogatory answers used broad references to thousands of pages of documents rather than identifying responsive records specifically. Their responses to requests for production used confusing file names and incomplete or unclear Bates-number references. The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide supplemental verified responses that identify only documents responsive to each request and use a standard Bates-numbering system. For interrogatories, the plaintiffs must either answer each question directly or identify each referenced document separately and explain why it responds to that interrogatory.

The court also held that the plaintiffs’ Rule 26 disclosures were incomplete. It ordered them to provide the address and telephone number for Kimberly Clougherty and to identify medical records they may use to support their claims, unless those records would be used only to challenge another witness’s credibility.

The court did not issue an order against Neil Ison because he was a non-party and apparently had not been given an opportunity to state his position in the joint discovery letter. It also did not issue an order concerning the property inspection because the parties had not met and discussed that issue before bringing it to the court.

Order to Show Cause and Disposition

The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause—meaning to explain why sanctions should not be imposed—based on their alleged failure to comply with earlier discovery orders and the federal discovery rules, including Gosain’s failure to appear for his deposition. The plaintiffs had 45 days to respond, and defendants could reply within one week after that. The court set a show-cause hearing for October 20, 2022, at 9:30 a.m.

The court stated that, absent a showing that the discovery failures were substantially justified, it intended to require the plaintiffs and/or their counsel to reimburse defendants’ reasonable attorney fees and expenses related to the discovery letters. The court also noted that a stay issued by the trial court could affect whether sanctions were appropriate. It ordered the plaintiffs to serve supplemental written discovery responses and supplemental Rule 26 disclosures within 14 days. The order did not impose sanctions at that time.