Easley et al v. U.S. Home Corporation et al, No. 2:2011cv00357 - Document 103 (D. Nev. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER Overruling 85 and 95 Plaintiffs' Objections. The Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judges Order denying Plaintiffs Motions to Compel, and Motion to Extend Discovery, as well as the Magistrate Judges Order granting Defendants fees. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 03/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Easley et al v. U.S. Home Corporation et al Doc. 103 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 BERTRAM EASLEY and TROY MINTER 8 Plaintiffs, 9 10 11 v. U.S. HOME CORPORATION d/b/a LENNAR, LENNAR CORP., et al., ORDER (Plfs.’ Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order – dkt. no. 85; Plf.’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order – dkt. no. 95) Defendants. 12 13 Case No. 2:11-cv-00357-MMD-CWH I. SUMMARY 14 Before the Court are Plaintiffs Bertram Easley and Troy Minter’s Objection to the 15 Order of Magistrate Judge Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Motion to Extend 16 Discovery (dkt. no. 85), as well as Plaintiff Troy Minter’s Objection to the August 7, 17 2012, Magistrate Judge Order Awarding Fees on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Tax 18 Returns (dkt. no. 95). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Orders, the 19 Motions that resulted in these Orders and the related briefs. For the reasons discussed 20 below, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge’s Orders. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiffs Bertram Easley and Troy Minter initiated the instant action on 23 November 19, 2010, against Defendants U.S. Home Corporation, doing business as 24 Lennar, Lennar Corporation, Lennar Sales Corp. and Greystone Nevada, LLC. 25 Plaintiffs worked as New Home Consultants in Walnut Grove, Defendants’ new home 26 development office in North Las Vegas. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants terminated 27 their employment at Walnut Grove because of their race. 28 disputes resulted in the Orders about which Plaintiffs now object. The parties’ discovery Dockets.Justia.com 1 On July 14, 2011, Plaintiffs served Requests to Produce, seeking certain 2 documents relating to the earnings of employees who sold homes after Plaintiffs’ 3 termination. On August 17, 2011, Defendants objected, but provided the names and 4 compensation agreements for employees transferred to Walnut Grove. On February 5 14, 2012, Defendants disclosed a two-page list of Walnut Grove homes sold after 6 Plaintiffs’ discharge. 7 On September 28, 2011, Plaintiff Easley issued his Second Set of Requests to 8 Produce, asking for all managerial time records created during his employment. 9 Defendants provided time off request forms on November 1, 2011, but objected to 10 producing time records, stating they did not exist. 11 On October 18, 2011, Plaintiffs Minter and Easley submitted separate Requests 12 to Produce, seeking the production of all text messages and emails related to events 13 precipitating their termination and documents reflecting litigation hold efforts. 14 Defendants timely objected to these requests on November 17, 2011, claiming they 15 were not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, but produced emails 16 and a privilege log. 17 On January 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend discovery, citing a number 18 of reasons, including discovery deficiencies, change of defense counsel, personal 19 issues, a busy work schedule, and interruption to counsel’s deposition schedule from 20 being summoned to jury duty. Plaintiffs then filed three motions to compel production of 21 documents between January 10 and 12, 2012. On June 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge 22 denied these three motions to compel, as well as the motion to extend discovery. (Dkt. 23 no. 83.) Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s rulings on these motions. 24 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 25 Magistrate Judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district 26 court review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L.R. IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may 28 reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case 2 1 pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s ruling is 2 clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). “A finding is clearly erroneous when, although 3 there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the 4 definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. 5 Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). 6 pretrial order issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is not subject to de novo review, 7 and the reviewing court “may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding 8 court.” Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 A magistrate’s 10 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE (dkt. no. 85) 11 A. 12 Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s rulings denying their three Motions to IV. 13 Motions to Compel Compel. The Court will address each objection in turn below. 15 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of All Electronically Stored Information and to Disclose Preservation Efforts (or Lack Thereof) 16 Plaintiffs challenge the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Defendants sufficiently 17 complied with Plaintiffs’ request for electronically stored information concerning events 18 giving rise to Plaintiffs’ terminations and litigation hold efforts. 19 Defendants asserted that the texts and emails Plaintiffs sought were not reasonably 20 accessible because of undue burden or cost. The Magistrate Judge found that the 21 emails produced by defendants were sufficient in light of Plaintiffs’ failure to show that 22 additional information existed or was within Defendants’ control. Plaintiffs argue that 23 Defendants are in possession or control of electronically stored information not already 24 produced, and the Magistrate Judge erred in accepting Defendant’s assertion that they 25 have produced all documents. 14 In their objections, 26 Defendants may have electronically stored information in their possession or 27 control that they have not already produced, but Defendants have established that it is 28 unduly burdensome or costly to produce the information. In its opposition, Defendants 3 1 explain that Plaintiffs’ requests were “vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome” and 2 that Defendants did not control text messages sought. (Dkt. No. 68 at 2-3.) These 3 arguments provide adequate support for Defendant’s objection that compliance with 4 Plaintiffs’ request would be unduly burdensome or costly. 5 Furthermore, as the moving party, Plaintiffs had the burden of proving in their 6 Motion to Compel that Defendants possessed the purportedly nonexistent emails or 7 controlled the unproduced texts. 8 5547153, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011). 9 discovery of information a party represents as non-existent, and because the Plaintiffs 10 failed to show that Defendants possessed or controlled the information sought, the 11 Magistrate Judge made no clear error. Peralta v. Martel, No. CIV S-09-3228, 2011 WL Because the Court does not compel 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Managerial Attendance Records 12 13 Plaintiffs further argue the Magistrate Judge committed clear error by finding that 14 Defendants complied with producing attendance records when they provided time-off 15 forms. 16 managers were “present on the job.” The Magistrate Judge found that Defendants 17 adequately complied with the request because the request did not specify the meaning 18 of “present on the job” and because Defendants represented that they do not keep time 19 records for management level employees. In light of Plaintiffs’ failure to prove that 20 additional records exist beyond those supplied by Defendants, the Magistrate Judge’s 21 finding of adequate compliance is not clearly erroneous. 22 Plaintiffs requested the production of documents showing when certain 23 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Comparator or Other Information to Allow Plaintiffs to Calculate Back Pay Damages 24 Plaintiffs also challenge as clearly erroneous the Magistrate Judge’s finding that 25 Defendants complied with the discovery requests for comparator information when 26 Defendants provided the names and compensation agreements for the two employees 27 transferred to Walnut Grove, as well as a list of homes and their prices sold after 28 Plaintiffs’ discharge. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to the finding that the request for 4 1 information about employees who “replaced” the Plaintiffs Bertram and Easley was too 2 vague where Defendants did not “replace” Plaintiffs but instead transferred existing 3 employees to Walnut Grove. 4 Plaintiffs requested documents showing the identity of the employees serving as 5 replacements for Defendants after their terminations, and their “qualifications and 6 experiences, and their earnings.” (Dkt. no. 52.) Plaintiffs also requested interrogatories 7 revealing the identities and earnings of these alleged replacements. Even assuming 8 Plaintiffs’ use of “replace” was definite, Defendants reasonably complied with Plaintiffs’ 9 discovery requests. Plaintiffs make no showing that they could not ascertain the 10 identities and compensation details from Defendants’ production. As such, the 11 Magistrate Judge’s finding is not clearly erroneous. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time 12 B. 13 Plaintiffs contend the Magistrate Judge committed clear error by finding that 14 Plaintiffs’ perception of discovery inadequacies did not constitute good cause, and by 15 failing to consider other circumstances warranting an extension cited by Plaintiffs in the 16 motion. A motion to extend discovery must be supported by a showing of good cause 17 for the extension. Local Rule 26-4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Good cause, according to 18 Plaintiffs’ motion, consisted of Defendants’ allegedly inadequate responses to discovery 19 requests, Ms. England’s attending a week-long EEOC hearing in December 2011, Ms. 20 England’s being called to jury duty and attending a settlement conference for an 21 unrelated case in January 2012, and the unexpected and rapidly failing health of family 22 members in Ms. England’s care between November and the first week of December. 23 Plaintiffs argue that discovery was delayed due to Ms. England’s caring for her 24 parents during the month of November and first week of December. This cannot 25 constitute good cause where this Court has already extended discovery to January 30, 26 2012, on the basis of Ms. England’s family obligations1 and where Ms. England resolved 27 28 1 Plaintiffs’ Stipulation for Extension of Time, which extended the discovery cut-off to January 30, 2012, was based on Ms. England’s absence in November and parts of December to care for her parents. (Dkt. no. 36.) 5 1 resolved her family care duties by December 15, 2011, at the latest.2 Because Plaintiffs 2 failed to show that family obligations affected discovery from December 15, 2011, to 3 January 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge’s failure to consider it as good cause was not 4 clearly erroneous. 5 Plaintiffs argue that Ms. England’s busy schedule constitutes good cause 6 warranting an extension. They allege that preparation for an EEOC hearing scheduled 7 for December 5-8, 2011, a federal settlement conference on January 31, 2012, and 8 being summoned for jury duty in January 2012 impeded Ms. England’s ability to take 9 depositions. The Court previously extended discovery in August 2011 to accommodate 10 Ms. England’s caseload. (Dkt. no. 22.) Recognizing the inability to meet her obligations, 11 Ms. England represented that she would obtain the assistance of other counsel, in 12 addition to Kristina Holoman, to assist with discovery activities in November 2011. (Dkt. 13 no. 36.) Plaintiffs made no showing suggesting that Ms. England’s caseload or jury duty 14 summons interfered with taking depositions from December 15, 2011 when she 15 resumed work on this case to January 30, 2012. Even if Plaintiffs made this showing, 16 it is not evident that Ms. England’s caseload should justify another extension where she 17 has had a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to reduce her occupational 18 burdens. Plaintiffs failed to show that Ms. England’s busy schedule prevented her from 19 taking depositions, thus the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the proffered excuses do not 20 constitute good cause was not clearly erroneous. 21 Plaintiffs contend that perceived discovery inadequacies, compounded by the 22 departure of one of Defendants’ attorneys from the case, deprived Ms. England of the 23 opportunity to take depositions before the discovery cut-off. Plaintiffs made no showing 24 that the delay necessarily prevented Ms. England from conducting depositions. To the 25 contrary, Ms. England states that she consciously deferred scheduling depositions 26 pending the outcome of her Motions to Compel. It is not apparent from the record that a 27 28 Ms. England’s family impediments may have ended sooner, as she indicates that she attended an EEOC hearing on December 5-8, 2011. 2 6 1 delay in communications regarding the allegedly incomplete discoveries impaired her 2 ability to schedule depositions. 3 defense counsel deprived Plaintiffs of the opportunity to, at the very least, schedule 4 depositions before the discovery cut-off, the Magistrate Judge was not clearly erroneous 5 in finding that good cause to extend discovery did not exist. 6 7 V. Because Plaintiffs failed to show that a change of PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION REGARDING ORDER AWARDING FEES (dkt. no. 93) 8 Plaintiff Minter files this Objection challenging the Magistrate Judge’s Order 9 awarding $3,060 for fees associated with bringing the Motion to Compel discussed 10 above. Minter argues, inter alia, that he was justified in withholding the sensitive 11 information that was the subject of the production requests, and the fee is unjust in light 12 of his annual income. 13 Minter first argues that his privacy rights in his tax returns warranted his failure to 14 produce the documents, and asserts that production of this sensitive information would 15 have yielded no relevant information in light of his sworn deposition and affidavit that 16 revealed the material information concerning his finances. The Court disagrees. 17 Although Minter’s tax returns contain sensitive information, bringing this lawsuit brings 18 into sharp focus his financial state in light of the case law that demonstrates its 19 relevance in employment litigation. In addition, serious questions exist as to Minter’s 20 claim that the tax returns produced redundant information already provided in his 21 interrogatory responses. Minter also argues that the Magistrate Judge’s award is unjust in light of his 22 23 annual income, and in light of Defendants’ unnecessary motion to compel. 24 explained by the Magistrate Judge in the December 1, 2011, hearing on the motion, the 25 tax records were properly discoverable, and the stipulated protective order addressed 26 Minter’s privacy concerns. Accordingly, Minter was under an obligation to produce the 27 returns. Although Minter’s financial state as described in his Objection is unfortunate, 28 /// 7 As 1 Minter’s failure to produce the tax returns was not justified, and created unnecessary 2 expense for Defendants. 3 Minter also challenges the Magistrate Judge’s consistency by arguing that 4 Defense counsel did not mention any attempt to confer with Minter concerning the 5 Motion, which was expressly required per the Magistrate Judge’s earlier order 6 admonishing Plaintiffs for failing the same requirement. Based on the Court’s review of 7 the record, there is no indication that the Magistrate Judge ruled inconsistently with 8 respect to the requirement that the parties meet and confer before bringing discovery 9 disputes before the Court. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Order was justified in 10 11 light of the circumstances, and not clearly erroneously under the applicable law. 12 VI. 13 CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections (dkt. nos. 85 and 95) The Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying 14 are OVERRULED. 15 Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel, and Motion to Extend Discovery, as well as the Magistrate 16 Judge’s Order granting Defendants’ fees. 17 18 DATED THIS 18th day of March 2013. 19 20 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
