Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WEST v. PETTIGREW, 2:11-cv-1692 JAM CKD P. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140429a26 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 28, 2014
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. On March 21, 2014, the court granted plaintiff a third and final extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' December 11, 2013 motion to compel. As plaintiff has not timely opposed the motion, the court considers it unopposed. Having reviewed defendants' motion and supporting papers, the court concludes that the factors of timeliness, good cause, utility, and materiality weigh in favor of granting the motion to compel plaintiff's depositi
More

ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

On March 21, 2014, the court granted plaintiff a third and final extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' December 11, 2013 motion to compel. As plaintiff has not timely opposed the motion, the court considers it unopposed.

Having reviewed defendants' motion and supporting papers, the court concludes that the factors of timeliness, good cause, utility, and materiality weigh in favor of granting the motion to compel plaintiff's deposition. See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi, 309 F.3d 988, 992 (7th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i), 37(d)(1)(A)(i). Between August 2013 and November 2013, defendants twice noticed plaintiff's deposition, only to have plaintiff respond that he would not participate. In short, plaintiff has not cooperated in discovery that is necessary to the furtherance of this litigation.

At this time, the court will deny defendants' request for monetary sanctions. However, if plaintiff again refuses to subject himself to deposition, the court will reconsider monetary sanctions in addition to the sanction of dismissing this action pursuant to Rule 37.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion to compel plaintiff's deposition (ECF No. 108) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

a. Within 21 days of the date of this order, defendants shall serve plaintiff with a notice of deposition. If plaintiff does not subject himself to deposition on the scheduled date, the court will consider imposing monetary sanctions and/or recommending dismissal of this action.

b. Defendants' request for monetary sanctions is denied at this time without prejudice to renewal.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer