Filed: Apr. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S LETTER REQUESTING DISMISSAL Re: Dkt. No. 58. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . After months of failing to participate in discovery and failing to comply with this court's orders, plaintiffs appeared in court on March 22, 2018, to oppose defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal. Because plaintiffs appeared, the court denied defendant's motion and provided plaintiffs with a final opportunity to comply with their discovery obligations. To facilitate compliance, t
Summary: ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S LETTER REQUESTING DISMISSAL Re: Dkt. No. 58. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . After months of failing to participate in discovery and failing to comply with this court's orders, plaintiffs appeared in court on March 22, 2018, to oppose defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal. Because plaintiffs appeared, the court denied defendant's motion and provided plaintiffs with a final opportunity to comply with their discovery obligations. To facilitate compliance, th..
More
ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S LETTER REQUESTING DISMISSAL
Re: Dkt. No. 58.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
After months of failing to participate in discovery and failing to comply with this court's orders, plaintiffs appeared in court on March 22, 2018, to oppose defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal. Because plaintiffs appeared, the court denied defendant's motion and provided plaintiffs with a final opportunity to comply with their discovery obligations. To facilitate compliance, the court required plaintiffs' written discovery responses be sent to both the court and defendant by March 30, 2018, and required plaintiffs to appear for their depositions at defendant's counsel's offices on April 20, 2018.
The court is now in receipt of defendant's letter requesting involuntary dismissal of this action because plaintiffs have again failed to comply with their discovery obligations. Specifically, the letter states that though defendant has received unverified interrogatory responses from plaintiff De La Luz, defendant has not received interrogatory responses from plaintiff Sanchez. Additionally, defendant has not received any response to its requests for production from either plaintiff.
On March 29, 2018, the court received the following categories of documents from plaintiffs:
• A copy of plaintiff De La Luz's interrogatory responses;
• The original of plaintiff Sanchez's interrogatory responses;
• A copy of plaintiffs' marriage certificate;
• A copy of plaintiff De La Luz's medical records;
• Photos of the equipment allegedly at issue in this case;
• A copy of plaintiff De La Luz's driver's license;
• A copy of plaintiff De La Luz's medical insurance card;
• A copy of plaintiff De La Luz's medical bills; and
• A copy of a workers' compensation claim form filled out by plaintiff De La Luz.
The court will send a copy of these documents to the defendant's counsel's office at 100 Howe Ave., Ste. 110 South, Sacramento, CA 95824. If, after reviewing the above documents, defendant finds that plaintiffs have failed to completely fulfill their discovery obligations, defendant should attempt to meet and confer with plaintiffs and then take other appropriate steps to enforce compliance.
The court admonishes plaintiffs for the final time. Any future failures by plaintiff to promptly fulfill their discovery obligations or to comply with this court's orders will result in a dismissal of this action. This includes the court's order requiring plaintiffs send copies of all discovery responses to both the court and defendant. Unless otherwise ordered, plaintiffs are still required to appear for their depositions on April 20, 2018 at the office of defendant's counsel at the address listed above.
Defendant's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
