In Sheikh v. Spinnaker Ins. Co., No. 2:23-cv-1582 TLN SCR (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2025), California Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan denied Defendants’ Discovery Motion without prejudice, and instead ordered Defendants to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for Defendants’ failure to meet and confer over whether Plaintiff sent an email containing further initial disclosures containing damage calculations.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case involving an insurance dispute over fire and vandalism incidents at Plaintiff’s property, the parties served initial disclosures on November 19, 2024. Plaintiff’s initial disclosures did not include the damages computations required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). After a meet and confer process failed to resolve the dispute, Defendants sought the Court’s assistance through an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). After the IDC, on February 5, 2025, the Court issued an order that required Plaintiff, within 30 days, “to supplement her initial disclosures and provide all currently available information concerning her damages computations, including, but not necessarily limited to, a computation of lost rental value and a computation of the cost of demolition, if any.”

On March 7 (the deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s order), Plaintiff’s counsel apparently served further initial disclosures on Defendants’ counsel by email. However, Defendants’ counsel apparently did not receive that email. Instead of contacting Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire about the status of the further initial disclosures, on March 14, Defendants filed the Discovery Motion, which sought (1) to compel Plaintiff “to provide full and complete compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) initial disclosures regarding damages that includes amounts calculated, and compliance with” the Court’s order, and (2) “monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, Yasin Almadani, jointly and severally for violating” the Court’s order.

As Judge Riordan noted: “Within ‘approximately half an hour’ of receiving the ECF notification for the Discovery Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendants’ counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel asked ‘[w]hat is the meaning of the motion referenced’ in the ECF notification, stated that the Further Initial Disclosures had been served ‘consistent with the Court order,’ attached those Further Initial Disclosures to the email, and threatened to move for sanctions unless Defendants were to withdraw the Discovery Motion….Plaintiff’s counsel then sent Defendants’ counsel a ‘.pdf’ version of the March 7 email that originally served the Further Initial Disclosures…Defendants’ counsel requested a native version of the March 7 email, but Plaintiffs’ counsel did not forward that original email to Defendants’ counsel or attach it to a new email.”

Continuing, he said: “After receiving Plaintiff’s Further Initial Disclosures, Defendants did not withdraw the Discovery Motion or seek to meet and confer regarding any substantive deficiencies in those disclosures. Instead, on April 3, 2025, Defendants filed a joint statement that, among other things, sought to show that Defendants’ counsel never received the March 7 email…Defendants’ portion of the joint statement also cited case law explaining that initial disclosures on ‘computations’ are substantively deficient when they fail to include information about the analysis used and evidence relied upon.” Judge Riordan added: “At the April 24 hearing, the undersigned asked Plaintiff’s counsel to forward the March 7 email to the undersigned’s chambers. Plaintiff’s counsel did so within minutes of the hearing’s conclusion. Nothing about the email suggests it is not authentic.”

In denying Defendant’s Discovery Motion, Judge Riordan stated: “Defendants failed to meet and confer at all with Plaintiff on the question of whether Plaintiff had complied with the deadline set by the Court’s IDC Order and, after being served with Plaintiff’s Further Initial Disclosures, on the question of the substantive adequacy of those Further Initial Disclosures. A good faith meet-and-confer process would have, at the very least, narrowed the dispute to substantive issues, as opposed to a fight over whether and when Plaintiff served those disclosures. Avoiding needless litigation is the whole point of the meet-and-confer requirement set out by Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 251(b).”

Continuing, he said: “Having resolved Defendants’ Discovery Motion, the remaining issue is whether to grant Plaintiff attorneys fees as a sanction for Defendants’ failure to meet and confer. Plaintiff seeks $6,650 in fees…Defendants will be ordered to show cause (“OSC”) as to why such a sanction should not issue…Defendants’ response to the OSC shall be filed within 14 days of the date of this order and limited to no more than ten double-spaced pages. Defendants’ response should focus on Defendants’ failure to meet and confer before filing the Discovery Motion on March 7 and Defendants’ decision to charge forward with the Discovery Motion, without conferring with Plaintiff, even after receiving the Further Initial Disclosures on March 14.”

So, what do you think? Should Defendants’ failure to meet and confer result in sanctions? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.