Opinion
NO. C 05-02354 JF (RS).
January 22, 2007
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Wavecrest Corporation and its CEO, Dennis Leisz (collectively "Wavecrest") move to compel plaintiff Mark Sherwood to produce further documents in support of his claims. By separate motion filed in conformance with Local Rule 7-8, Wavecrest also seeks sanctions. The motions have been fully briefed and argument having been heard, the motion to compel is granted and the motion for sanctions is denied.
II. BACKGROUND
Sherwood was terminated from his employment with LeCroy Corporation. Sherwood previously brought an action in Santa Clara Superior Court against Lecroy and Cypress Semiconductor regarding his termination. During that litigation, a witness testified that Leisz, Wavecrest's CEO, had asserted that Sherwood "sued every company he ever worked for."
Sherwood settled his claims against LeCroy and Cypress, but brought this action against Wavecrest, alleging defamation and claiming that defendants played a role in his termination from LeCroy.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Compel
Sherwood served no timely responses to the document demands at issue in these motions. Although Sherwood's opposition suggests that at least some of the requests could be interpreted as calling for an overly-broad production, he does not attempt to stand on any such objections. Rather, Sherwood's opposition acknowledges that responsive documents remain to be produced and merely argues that the production would have been completed had Wavecrest made further efforts to meet and confer.
Nor does Sherwood argue that grounds exist to relieve him from having waived any such objections by failing to serve timely responses.
The record establishes that Wavecrest's efforts to meet and confer were more than adequate under the Local Rules. Wavecrest initiated multiple communications in an attempt to obtain complete production. At the hearing, Sherwood asserted that the remaining responsive documents had been produced only one day prior to the hearing, despite representations in the opposition filed two weeks earlier that virtually everything had already been produced or would be produced forthwith. Thus, it is apparent that motion practice, not continued meet and confer efforts, was required to produce results.
Accordingly, the motion to compel will be granted. If, indeed, no further responsive documents exist, so be it. If, however, upon review of the most recent production, counsel for Wavecrest believes the production is still incomplete, counsel for Sherwood shall make every effort to respond to those concerns and shall ensure that any further responsive documents that may exist are produced within 20 days of the date of this order.
B. Motion for Sanctions
Although Sherwood does not appear to have an entirely satisfactory explanation for his failure to produce documents in a timely manner, there were at least some questions as to the extent to which defendants were seeking documents beyond those produced to other parties or in the prior Superior Court litigation. Additionally, this is not a case where a party was under prior court order to respond to discovery. Under all the circumstances here, the Court declines to impose sanctions at this time. Sherwood is cautioned that if he fails to complete fully the production within 20 days of this order, Wavecrest may renew its sanctions motion, and any failure to comply with future discovery obligations in this action on a timely basis will likewise be sanctionable.
IV. CONCLUSION
The motion to compel is granted. The motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice, as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.