Grinzi v. Barnes

Full title: RACHELE GRINZI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CURTIS BARNES, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Oct 20, 2004

Case No. C 04-1655 PVT (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2004)

Opinion

Case No. C 04-1655 PVT.

October 20, 2004

ORDER SANCTIONING DEFENDANTS CURTIS O. BARNES, P.C. AND CURTIS BARNES FOR UNJUSTIFIED FAILURE TO MAKE COMPLETE INITIAL DISCLOSURE, AND AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $756.00 TO PLAINTIFFS

PATRICIA TRUMBULL, Magistrate Judge

On September 14, 2004 Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel disclosures.¹ Defendants Curtis O. Barnes, P.C. and Curtis Barnes ("Defendants") failed to file any opposition to the motion. This court granted the unopposed motion and issued an order to Defendants to show cause why they should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "OSC"), and setting a deadline for Plaintiffs to submit a declaration setting forth the attorneys fees they incurred in bringing this motion. Defendants filed a declaration in response to the OSC, and Plaintiffs filed a declaration setting forth the fees they incurred. Having reviewed the parties' respective submissions, and the file herein,

1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying the present motion.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's shall pay Plaintiffs $756.00 to reimburse them for the cost of bringing the motion to compel the initial disclosure. (The court did not award the entire amount requested because Rule 37(a)(4)(A) only authorizes an award of the fees incurred in actually making the motion to compel.)

Defendants' excuse for failing to serve a complete disclosure of Roy Bell's contact information is that one of their attorneys believed doing so would violate Roy Bell's right to privacy under the California Constitution. However, California law is inapplicable to disclosure and discovery obligations in a federal court action alleging federal causes of action. See, e.g., Garrett v. City County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1519 n. 6 (9^th Cir. 1987) (personnel files discoverable in federal civil rights action despite claims of privilege under California law).

Defendants' desire for a court order compelling them to produce the information before doing so, presumably in an attempt to insulate themselves from potential liability to their former employee, did not constitute "substantial justification" for failing to make complete initial disclosures as required by Rule 26. Rule 26 created a legal obligation for Defendants to make the disclosure. No further order of the court was required.

The proper mechanism for an employer to use to protect an employee's privacy interest in his personnel file is to obtain, either by stipulation or motion, a properly crafted protective order under Rule 26(c). See, e.g., Knoll v. American Telephone Telegraph Company, 176 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 1999). Here, Defendants have made no such attempt to protect the information from public disclosure, which would have been the only justifiable reason for resisting the disclosure. Instead, they put Plaintiffs and the court through a meaningless exercise, without achieving any protection for the personnel information. Plaintiffs' should not be required to bear the costs caused by Defendants' unreasonable conduct.

Because Defendants did not have substantial justification for withholding the information from their Rule 26 initial disclosures, and there are no other circumstances which would make an award of fees unjust, Rule 37(a)(4)(A) mandates an order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiffs the reasonable expenses and fees they incurred in making the motion to compel.