Case Name: Mirza v. The Leland Stanford Junior University, et al.
Case No.: 1-13-CV-251641

This is a slip and fall action. On September 2, 2011, plaintiff Yasmin Mirza (“Plaintiff”) was walking to work at Stanford Hospital and Clinics (“SHC”) when she tripped on uneven sidewalk near the SHC emergency room and loading docks, resulting in serious injuries. (See complaint, ¶¶ 7, 8.) On August 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against SHC and defendant The Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) asserting causes of action for negligence and premises liability.

Initially, the Court notes that the hearing date was changed by the Court, not counsel. The Court no longer has a separate discovery department, and schedules the discovery motions on its regularly set Tuesday and Thursday law and motion hearing dates. Any objection to the change in the date is OVERRULED.

The Court does note that the original notice of motion was not timely served. The last day to hand serve a notice of motion set for hearing on January 23, 2015 was December 30, 2014. Plaintiff served the motion by mail on December 30.

On August 14, 2014, Plaintiff served special interrogatories (“SIs”), requests for production of documents (“RPDs”), and requests for admissions (“RFAs”) on Stanford. On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff received responses consisting entirely of objections. After meet and confer efforts, on October 20, 2014, Stanford served further responses that included substantive responses. However, Plaintiff deemed those responses to be “equally non-responsive and wholly inadequate.” On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff contacted Stanford, indicating dissatisfaction with Stanford’s objections in the discovery responses, and requesting further responses by November 25, 2014. On November 19, 2014 and again on November 24, 2014, Stanford responded, indicating that it would not be able to provide verified responses by November 25, 2014 because Stanford’s authorized agent was unavailable to sign verifications until January 9, 2015, when the school reopened after the winter closure. In response, Plaintiff extended a conditional extension to provide further responses to December 8, 2014; however, counsel for Stanford replied that it would still be unable to provide verifications until after Stanford returned from its winter closure and granted Plaintiff an open extension to filing any motion to compel. On December 10, 2014, counsel for Stanford emailed counsel for Plaintiff indicating that it was working on its further responses.

On December 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to SIs 12, 15, 17, 20-23, and 25, RPDs 1-50 and RFAs 1 and 3-8. Plaintiff also seeks $4,560 in monetary sanctions against Stanford in connection with her motion. In opposition, Stanford contends that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer in good faith.

The Santa Clara County Bar Association Code of Professionalism requires that:
A lawyer should understand… that civility and courtesy in scheduling… discovery are expected as professional conduct…. For example… [a] lawyer should make reasonable efforts to schedule… discovery by agreement whenever possible and should consider the scheduling interests of opposing counsel, the parties, witnesses, and the court…. A lawyer should not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold consent to a request for scheduling accommodations.

Consistent with existing law and court orders, a lawyer should agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time when the legitimate interests of his or her client will not be adversely affected. Consistent with existing law and court orders, a lawyer should agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time when the legitimate interests of his or her client will not be adversely affected…. For example:
A lawyer should agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time or continuances without requiring motions or other formalities….

Motions should be filed or opposed only in good faith and when the issue cannot be otherwise resolved…. For example: Before filing a motion, a lawyer should engage in a good faith effort to resolve the issue. In particular, civil discovery motions should be filed sparingly.

(Santa Clara County Bar Association Code of Professionalism, §§ 3, 4 10, approved by Standing Order of the Court.)

Here, Plaintiff failed to agree to Stanford’s reasonable request for an extension of time since Stanford’s authorized agent for verifying its responses was unavailable until the restart of Stanford’s school year. Stanford granted Plaintiff an extension to file a motion to compel regarding its responses, yet Plaintiff withheld its consent, and instead filed the instant motion. It is immaterial that Stanford later withdrew its offer to extend time to file the motion on January 9, 2015, since Plaintiff had already filed the instant motion by that date.

In her reply, Plaintiff acknowledges that Stanford indicated in its December 10, 2014 letter that it was “working to get further ‘draft’ discovery responses,” but that “[f]rankly, Plaintiff is not interested in ‘draft’ responses… [as] Plaintiff seeks, and is entitled to, substantive, verified responses to its discovery which were originally due on or about September 2014.” (Pl.’s reply brief, p.3:3-9.) However, Stanford had already indicated that the reason it could not provide verified responses was that its authorized agent for verification was unavailable until January 9, 2015. Moreover, Stanford had already provided verified, further responses on October 20, 2014; thus, the September 2014 initial due date is irrelevant to the instant motion.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to discovery is DENIED. If Stanford has not yet served its further supplemental responses as it agreed to do by early January, the Court suggests that Stanford do so forthwith. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is likewise DENIED.

Stanford’s objections are not the basis for the Court’s ruling.

The Court will prepare the order.