Maude v. Barboza

Background

Defendant Ciro Barboza moved to compel Plaintiff Erin K. Maude to respond to and produce documents requested in Barboza’s first set of requests for production. The requests sought documents concerning the facts alleged in the complaint, documents listed in Maude’s initial disclosures, documents supporting her claim that Barboza violated her constitutional rights, documents supporting damages, and documents supporting an attorney-fee claim. Barboza also requested sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

Maude did not timely serve responses. After the deadline for responding to the motion had passed, the court ordered her to explain why the motion should not be granted. Maude filed her response two days late and said the parties had conferred and agreed on a plan that would lead to withdrawal of the motion. She acknowledged that she had not responded to the requests for production. Barboza’s reply indicated that he still sought an order requiring document production and sanctions. Maude’s counsel did not attend the scheduled telephone hearing.

Ruling

The court granted Barboza’s motion to compel. It did not order Maude to serve responses to the requests for production. Instead, the court held that the consequence of failing to respond on time was waiver of Maude’s objections to the requests. The court ordered Maude to produce all documents responsive to the requests for production.

The court denied Barboza’s request for sanctions without prejudice to refiling it in compliance with the local rules. Civil Local Rule 7-8 requires a sanctions motion to be filed separately, and Civil Local Rule 37-4 applies that requirement to sanctions sought under Rule 37. Because Barboza combined the sanctions request with the motion to compel, the request did not comply with those rules.