Mejia v. Marauder Corp.

Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Mejia v. Marauder Corp.

Post by David A. Szwak »

Mejia v. Marauder Corp.
Slip Copy, 2006 WL 3050853
N.D.Cal.,2006.
October 24, 2006

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS


HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.
*1 On October 24, 2006, this court heard plaintiff's Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures and Motion for Discovery Sanctions. Defendants opposed the motions. Having considered the papers filed by the parties, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court issues the following order.



I. BACKGROUND

This is an action for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based upon a collection letter defendants purportedly sent to plaintiff.

Upon the filing of the complaint, the court set an August 11, 2006 deadline for the parties to complete their initial disclosures. Defendants did not provide their disclosures by that date; and, at the August 29, 2006 initial case management conference, this court set a September 5, 2006 deadline for them to do so.

Defendants failed to provide their disclosures by September 5, 2006. On September 15, 2006, plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel, along with a motion for sanctions, seeking $1,200 in attorney's fees and costs incurred in this disclosure dispute.

Defendants subsequently served their disclosures on September 22, 2006. Nevertheless, plaintiff contends that those disclosures are inadequate because defendants (1) essentially copied his own initial disclosures; and (2) did not identify the existence of any applicable insurance coverage under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(D). For their part, defendants claim that plaintiff agreed that they could have until September 22, 2006 to provide their disclosures. They contend that no sanctions are warranted because plaintiff reneged on that agreement by filing the instant motions.



II. LEGAL STANDARD

Initial disclosures “must be made at or within 14 days after the Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set stipulation or court order....â€
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Post by David A. Szwak »

Mejia v. Marauder Corp.,
Slip Copy, 2007 WL 806486, N.D.Cal., March 15, 2007 (No. C06-00520 HRL.)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


HOWARD R. LLOYD, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 Plaintiff Jose Guadalupe Mejia moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, partial summary judgment. Defendants Marauder Corporation (“Marauderâ€
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555
Post Reply

Return to “Marauder Corporation”