Sabel v. City and County of San Francisco, 3:16-cv-04832

Defendants moved to compel discovery responses and production of documents, and for sanctions, after plaintiff failed to provide written responses or complete production.
Plaintiff Norman Sabel, in a civil action against City and County of San Francisco and others, had initial disclosures identifying various documents after the February 14, 2017 requests.
Plaintiff produced some documents on March 24, 2017 but did not provide written responses or objections to the requests or interrogatories.
Meet-and-confer efforts occurred; Plaintiff promised responses by dates in April and May 2017 but did not provide them; videos and materials were later produced on May 11, 2017, which defendants deemed largely irrelevant.
Judge Henderson and later Judge Chen handled case-management and sanctions implications, with counsel Gomes repeatedly missing hearings and failing to appear at conferences, prompting warnings of potential dismissal for noncompliance.
The court ultimately granted in part the motion to compel, ordered specific document production within two weeks, reserved sanctions for a September 12, 2017 hearing, and instructed counsel to appear.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff must provide written responses to interrogatories and requests for production.	Sabel	City	Grants in part; requires written responses within two weeks
Whether documents identified in plaintiff's initial disclosures must be produced.	Sabel	City	Grants; produce identified documents or state non-possession/privilege within two weeks
Whether documents identified or referred to in plaintiff's interrogatory responses should be produced.	Sabel	City	Grants; produce non-privileged documents within two weeks of written responses
Whether the video of the June 2013 incident should be produced.	Sabel	City	Grants; produce video within two weeks
Whether documents relating to the incident, medical records, and prior/litigation with the city or Nikko Bravo should be produced.	Sabel	City	Grants for RFP4, RFP5, and RFP7 (with limitations); produce within two weeks; deny without prejudice RFP6 for lack of information
Whether sanctions against plaintiff's counsel are warranted for discovery misconduct.	Sabel	City	Sanctions reserved for September 12, 2017 hearing; potential dismissal if counsel fails to appear

Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to object in time constitutes waiver)
Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1985) (sanctions may be imposed for failure to respond; not require willful conduct)