Motion for Discovery Sanctions vs. T-Mobile Is Denied as ‘Procedurally Improper’
U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen for Northern California in San Jose denied plaintiff Bradford Clements’ motion for sanctions against T-Mobile for flouting the court’s Aug. 2 discovery order (see 2401040011), said the judge’s signed order Monday (docket 5:22-cv-07512). The…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
request for sanctions is “procedurally improper” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and untimely under the Northern District of California Civil Local Rules, said the order. If Clements believed he was entitled to discovery responses that were more substantive, “then the appropriate next step would have been to bring a motion to compel,” it said. Such a motion would have provided the court with a timely understanding as to how and where T-Mobile’s responses were incomplete and evasive, as Clements contends, it said. Rule 37(a) “speaks to motions to compel discovery responses and the sanctions available if such a motion is granted," it said. But Clements didn’t move to compel responses and therefore can’t avail himself of Rule 37(a)’s remedies, it said. T-Mobile served written responses to Clements’ discovery requests, and Clements’ complaints about those responses should have come to the court “via a timely motion to compel,” it said. His complaint that T-Mobile refused to meet and confer following the Aug. 28 round of discovery responses “is well taken,” said the order. T-Mobile’s behavior in this regard “is in no way condoned” by the court by denial of this motion, it said.