Gonzalez v. Ahern

Background

The parties submitted eight joint discovery letter briefs concerning disputes involving Plaintiffs, Aramark, the County Defendants, and other parties. The court decided the disputes without oral argument and stated that the order resolved Docket Nos. 346 through 353.

Rulings

Aramark’s interrogatory responses — Docket No. 346

Plaintiffs sought supplemental answers to three special interrogatories. For Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiffs argued that Aramark’s training records did not identify the time spent on training or who provided it. Aramark stated that it had produced more than 750 pages of training materials and explained how its training logs supplied the requested information. The court denied the request for a supplemental response.

For Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4, Plaintiffs sought the dates each identified Aramark employee had been at Santa Rita Jail. Aramark offered time-and-attendance records, which totaled 2,764 pages. The court held that Rule 33(d) permits a party to answer an interrogatory by identifying business records when the information can be obtained from those records and the burden would be substantially the same for either party. Because Plaintiffs did not contend that they could not determine the information from the records, the court denied their supplementation requests.

Aramark’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition — Docket Nos. 347 and 348

The court denied Plaintiffs’ letter brief about deposition topics without prejudice to renewal because the filing was missing its second and fourth pages. The court also required any renewed filing to describe the parties’ in-person or video meet-and-confer efforts, including the dates, times, and participants.

Plaintiffs also asked to exceed the seven-hour limit for Aramark’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and sought up to three times that limit. The court denied the request because it was conclusory and instructed Plaintiffs to narrowly tailor any request to discovery related to their individual claims remaining in the case. The court did not consider an issue Aramark raised about document preservation because the letter did not include both sides’ discussion of that issue.

Plaintiffs’ request for additional depositions — Docket No. 349

Plaintiffs served 37 deposition notices and sought permission to exceed Rule 30(a)(2)’s presumptive ten-deposition limit. The court found that Plaintiffs had not identified the proposed additional deponents or made the required particularized showing of why the depositions were necessary. Nonetheless, considering the number of individual Plaintiffs and claims, the court allowed five additional depositions and allowed the depositions even though they had been noticed one day late. Plaintiffs were required to tell Defendants by 5:00 p.m. on November 2, 2023, which 15 depositions they would pursue.

The court denied Plaintiffs’ separate request for up to 20 hours of testimony from the County’s Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses for the same reason it denied the request to extend Aramark’s deposition time.

Plaintiffs’ inspection demand — Docket No. 350

Plaintiffs sought permission to inspect the jail between November 9 and 16, 2023. The court held that the request violated the parties’ agreement and an earlier court order stating that no additional written discovery requests were permitted. The court further held that the inspection request fell outside the limited matters for which fact discovery had been extended and therefore was subject to the earlier October 16 deadline. Because Plaintiffs did not show good cause for the delay, the court denied the inspection request as untimely.

Kimberly Moule’s deposition — Docket No. 351

The County Defendants sought permission to exceed the ten-deposition limit to take the deposition of non-party witness Kimberly Moule, who had already been deposed as their eleventh deposition. They said her testimony was relevant to Plaintiffs’ sanitation claims because she had conducted inspections of Santa Rita Jail for compliance with sanitation, safety, and maintenance requirements.

Plaintiffs did not object based on relevance or another discovery ground. Instead, they argued that they would not agree to the deposition because Defendants would not agree that Plaintiffs could exceed the ten-deposition limit. The court held that discovery is not conducted on a tit-for-tat basis and found that Defendants had made a particularized showing of necessity. The court granted Defendants’ request to exceed the limit for Ms. Moule’s deposition.

Plaintiffs’ interrogatory verifications — Docket No. 352

Defendants sought verifications for interrogatory answers served on May 11, 2023. Plaintiffs acknowledged that they had not provided the verifications and said the process was difficult because Plaintiffs were incarcerated, while indicating that they would provide them within 30 days. The court held that the verifications were required when the interrogatory answers were served and ordered Plaintiffs to provide them by November 22, 2023.

Plaintiffs’ requests for admission — Docket No. 353

Defendants sought a ruling that requests for admission served on May 11, 2023, should be treated as admitted because Plaintiffs did not timely respond. Defendants had extended the response deadline to July 12, 2023. Plaintiffs argued that their responses were not transmitted on July 19 because of a technology problem, but the court found that the responses were untimely even if they had been sent on July 19.

Applying Rule 36(a)(3), the court held that matters are admitted when the responding party does not timely serve an answer or objection. The court granted Defendants’ motion without prejudice to Plaintiffs presenting evidence—through an attorney declaration under oath or written correspondence—supporting their claim that Defendants granted an extension until July 19.

Disposition

The order resolved all pending discovery disputes and disposed of Docket Nos. 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, and 353. Judge Corley also reminded the parties that they must meet and confer in person or by video before filing future discovery disputes.