Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01566-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Plaintiff was permitted to argue even though her opposition 1

was filed the day before the hearing. Moreover, that opposition was

not served by plaintiff on defendant’s counsel. Nonetheless, the

court has considered plaintiff’s untimely, one-page opposition to

defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIEIDRA J. THOMAS, No. CIV.S-05-1566 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

This matter came before the court on December 8, 2006, for

hearing on defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals’ motion to dismiss

due to plaintiff’s lack of prosecution and failure to attend her

deposition. William Bishop appeared on behalf of defendant Kaiser

Foundation Hospitals, the only remaining defendant. Plaintiff,

proceeding pro se, appeared on her own behalf. For the reasons 1

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 36 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

explained below, the undersigned will recommend that this action be

dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to attend her duly noticed

deposition.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1) provides, in

relevant part:

If a party ... fails (1) to appear before the

officer who is to take the deposition, after

being served with a proper notice, ... the court

in which the action is pending on motion may make

such orders in regard to the failure as are just,

and among others it may take any action

authorized under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C)

of subdivision (b)(2) of this rule.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(b)(2)(C) allows the court to make “[a]n order striking out

pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the

order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part

thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient

party[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

A district court has discretion in imposing discovery

sanctions. Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997). 

A court is permitted to impose the drastic sanction of dismissal or

default under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) only in “extreme circumstances” where

the violation is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the

party.” In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1996). In

determining whether to dismiss an action or enter default pursuant to

Rule 37(b)(2)(C), a district court must consider five factors:

“‘(1) the public's interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 36 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

the [opposing party]; (4) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” 

[Payne, 121 F.3d at 507](quoting Malone v. U.S.

Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.

2004).

Plaintiff initiated this action a year and a half ago by

filing her complaint in state court. Defendants promptly removed

the case to federal court. This court set an initial status

conference for December 2, 2005, at which time plaintiff appeared. 

Despite having been cautioned to complete service of process in the

initial order setting status, plaintiff had not completed service of

process on defendant Hospital & Health Care Workers’ Union Local 250

at that time. The court granted plaintiff additional time to

complete service and continued the status conference.

A further status conference was held on March 10, 2006. 

At that time, there was no indication in the court file that

plaintiff had completed service of process. However, plaintiff

appeared and represented that she had served defendant Local 250 as

directed but had mistakenly filed proof of that service in the

Sacramento County Superior Court, the court from which this action

had been removed. This court continued the status conference once

again, affording plaintiff still more time to file a proof of

service as to defendant Local 250. Additionally, plaintiff was

reminded by the court for at least the second time to: (1) keep the

court apprised of her current address of record; (2) file all 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 36 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Subsequently, the assigned district judge adopted the 2

recommendation of the undersigned and dismissed defendant Local 250. 

4

documents in this court only with a proper caption and case number;

and (3) serve all filings on opposing counsel.

Another status conference was held on April 14, 2006. 

Plaintiff failed to appear at that time. Therefore, the court

recommended that defendant Local 250 be dismissed for lack of timely

service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and also ordered

plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for

lack of prosecution. Plaintiff’s response to that order to show

cause was substantially non-responsive and essentially asked the

court to “forgive all my ignorance.” (Doc. No. 21, filed May 1,

2006.) Out of an abundance of caution, the court discharged the

order to show cause and scheduled a fourth status conference. At 2

the fourth status conference held on August 4, 2006, this case was

finally scheduled and the parties were left to conduct discovery. 

However, as set forth in detail in the pending motion, defendant

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals’ best efforts to conduct discovery over

the last sixteen months have proven nearly fruitless due to

plaintiff’s actions.

Defendant’s motion, accompanying memorandum of points and

authorities and declaration of counsel persuasively make the case

that this matter should be dismissed due to plaintiff’s discovery

misconduct. Plaintiff has engaged in a series of discovery abuses

culminating in her failure on two occasions to appear for her duly

noticed deposition. See Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 508

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 36 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 For example, plaintiff refused to state her name for the 3

record, telling counsel: “You are a lawyer, go pull up DMV.” 

5

(9th Cir. 1997)(“The district court may properly consider all of a

party's discovery misconduct in weighing a motion to dismiss,

including conduct which has been the subject of earlier sanctions.”;

Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1411-12 (9th Cir.

1990)(“A court may consider prior misconduct when weighing a

subsequent sanction motion. Therefore, the district court properly

considered all of Adriana's discovery conduct in deciding Thoeren's

motion for default.”). In short, defendant’s motion demonstrates

that: (1) defendant rescheduled plaintiff’s initially noticed

deposition at plaintiff’s request; (2) the second notice of

plaintiff’s deposition was returned as undeliverable to plaintiff;

(3) the third time her deposition was scheduled plaintiff appeared

but was uncooperative; (4) plaintiff cancelled her re-scheduled 3

deposition (i.e., the fourth deposition) and then arbitrarily

insisted that any further deposition not occur between certain hours

of the day or on consecutive days; (5) despite assurances to defense

counsel that she would appear, plaintiff nonetheless failed to

appear for her noticed deposition on July 26, 2006 (i.e., the fifth

scheduled deposition date), claiming that she had forgotten about

the date; and (6) despite still further assurances to defense

counsel that she would appear, plaintiff failed once again to appear

for her re-noticed deposition on September 27, 2006. On November 6,

2006 defendant filed and served the pending motion seeking dismissal

due to plaintiff’s lack of prosecution and failure to attend her

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 36 Filed 12/11/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The one-page handwritten opposition merely offers, in sum, 4

that plaintiff’s “absence in court with the defendant Kaiser (KFH)

was not because I did not want to work through this case. I just

could not come to court due to new job and school schedule.” (Pl.’s

Opp’n at 1.) 

6

noticed depositions. As noted above, plaintiff did not respond in

any way to this motion until the day before the properly noticed

hearing. In fact, defense counsel did not hear from plaintiff after

her last failure to appear at deposition until she appeared at the

December 8, 2006, hearing on the pending motion.

This history demonstrates to the court that plaintiff has

willfully failed to appear at her duly noticed deposition on several

occasions. Lesser sanctions such as monetary sanctions would appear

to be ineffective, plaintiff having suggested that she would be

unable to pay monetary sanctions. Additionally, plaintiff has

engaged in this dilatory conduct despite the court already

dismissing one defendant for lack of timely service and issuing an

earlier order to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed

for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff’s conduct over the last year and

a half since she initiated this action has undermined the public's

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation as well as the

court's need to manage its docket. While plaintiff belatedly filed

opposition to the motion and appeared at the hearing, she has not

demonstrated any risk of prejudice as a result of dismissing this

action. Indeed, plaintiff’s opposition does not even address her

failure to cooperate in the discovery process. While the sanction 4

of dismissal is a drastic one, it should be imposed under these

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 36 Filed 12/11/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

extreme circumstances. Therefore, while recognizing the public

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, the

undersigned will recommend that the assigned district judge dismiss

this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s

motion be granted and this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s

failure to attend her duly noticed deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(d)(1) & 37(b)(2)(C).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 8, 2006.

DAD:th

DDad1/orders.prose/thomas1566.f&r.dismiss

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 36 Filed 12/11/06 Page 7 of 7