Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH (KAW)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE; DENYING MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEFING; 

TERMINATING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 85, 87, 89

On March 2, 2019, Plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell filed these cases against Defendants 

Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. (“R&S”) and Service West, Inc. (“SW”), alleging discrimination on the 

basis of race, sex, and national origin. (See Dkt. No. 1.)1 After Plaintiff again failed to meet and 

confer, Defendant SW filed a unilateral discovery letter regarding Plaintiff’s response to 

Defendant SW’s Interrogatories, Set One on April 5, 2019. (Dkt. No. 79.)

On April 23, 2019, the Court issued an order on Defendant SW’s discovery letter, 

requiring Plaintiff to provide supplemental responses. (Dkt. No. 85 at 1.) The Court also 

explained, not for the first time, “that Plaintiff’s repeated discovery tactics are highly improper. 

Plaintiff has refused to cooperate in discovery, including not meeting and conferring, withholding 

information, and necessitating unnecessary motion practice.” (Id. at 8.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s 

“continu[ing ] abuse [of] the discovery process” had resulted in her “wasting the time of both 

Defendants and the Court.” (Id.) Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, by May 7, 

2019, why the Court should not recommend terminating sanctions. (Id.)

On April 24, 2019, Defendants filed an administrative motion for leave to file briefing in 

 

1 The cases were originally filed separately; on January 9, 2019, the cases were consolidated. 

(Dkt. No. 64.)

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 92 Filed 05/17/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

support of terminating sanctions, or for instructions on filing a motion for terminating sanctions. 

(Dkt. No. 87 at 2.) Defendants stated they were preparing a motion for terminating sanctions, and 

sought to provide that information before the Court ruled on sanctions. (Id. at 3.)

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff mailed her response to the order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 88-1.) 

Plaintiff’s response was received by the Court on May 9, 2019. (Dkt. No. 88.) In her response, 

Plaintiff provided the required supplemental interrogatory responses, as ordered by the Court. (Id.

at 1-5.) Because Plaintiff asserted she was in compliance with the Court’s order, Plaintiff 

requested that the Court terminate the order to show cause. (Id. at 6.)

On May 10, 2019, Defendants filed their motion for terminating sanctions. (Dkt. No. 89.) 

In their motion, Defendants stated that Plaintiff had not fully complied with the Court’s prior 

orders that Plaintiff serve verified responses and responsive documents to Defendants’ Requests 

for Production, Set One, or to provide her initial disclosures to Defendant R&S. (Id. at 8.) 

Defendants also stated that Plaintiff had failed to provide any response to SW’s Requests For 

Production, Set Two, and had refused to appear for her second day of deposition. (Id. at 10-12.) 

Defendants, however, did not contend that Plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatory responses were 

deficient. (See id. at 9 (“Plaintiff did provide the minimally responsive answers to interrogatories 

to which Service West was entitled in the first instance.”).)

After considering the parties’ filings and Plaintiff’s apparent compliance with the Court’s 

April 23, 2019 order, the Court DISCHARGES the order to show cause, DENIES Defendants’ 

motion to file briefing in support of terminating sanctions as moot in light of their filing the 

motion for sanctions, and TERMINATES the motion for sanctions. The Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff shall provide her responsive documents to Defendants’ Requests for 

Production, Set One and SW’s Requests for Production, Set Two, by May 31, 2019. If Plaintiff 

has no additional responsive documents, Plaintiff shall so state in her written response.

2. Plaintiff shall provide her initial disclosures to Defendant R&S by May 31, 2019.

3. The parties shall meet and confer on a date for Plaintiff’s deposition, which shall 

occur no later than June 14, 2019, unless the parties mutually agree to a later date.

If the parties have any disputes, the parties shall meet and confer, and attempt to resolve 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 92 Filed 05/17/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

their dispute without judicial intervention.

If Plaintiff refuses to meet and confer, or to otherwise comply with this order or her 

general discovery obligations, the Court may issue sanctions, including monetary, issue, 

evidentiary, or terminating sanctions. In that event, Defendants need not re-file their motion for 

terminating sanctions, although the Court may request supplemental briefing as to what 

evidentiary or issue sanctions they believe are warranted.

Again, Plaintiff is reminded of her obligation to comply with discovery, which includes 

timely responses, meeting and conferring to resolve discovery disputes, and accommodating 

deadlines when appropriate. Plaintiff is not entitled to withhold evidence that is detrimental to her 

case, or unilaterally decide when her discovery responses are due. The Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure set specific deadlines for responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) (interrogatory 

responses are due within 30 days of being served), 34(b)(2)(A) (written responses to requests for 

production are due within 30 days of being served), 36(a)(3) (responses to requests for admission 

are due within 30 days of being served, or the matter is deemed admitted). If Plaintiff requires an 

extension, she should request one from Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 92 Filed 05/17/19 Page 3 of 3