Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00277/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00277-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOROTHY GRANT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WESTAFF TEMPORARY AGENCY,

Defendant /

No. C-04-0277 MMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS;

COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY

WITH DISCOVERY REQUESTS

(Docket No. 52)

Before the Court is the motion filed August 25, 2005 by defendant Westaff

Temporary Agency (“Westaff”), seeking dismissal of the above-titled action pursuant to

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Dorothy Grant (“Grant”) has filed

opposition to the motion, to which Westaff has replied. Having considered the papers filed

in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for

resolution without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the November 18, 2005

hearing, and rules as follows.

The instant motion is based on Grant’s admitted refusal to comply with Westaff’s

discovery requests. Grant’s only proffered reason for failing to comply with her discovery

obligations is that she does not have an attorney. The Court has notified Grant, during at

least one case management conference, that Grant, having filed the instant action, has a

responsibility to prosecute such action with or without the assistance of counsel. Because

Case 3:04-cv-00277-MMC Document 67 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 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

2

that admonition occurred during unreported proceedings, however, and because Grant may

not have understood it to apply to the discovery obligations at issue in the instant motion,

the Court will afford Grant one final opportunity to comply with Westaff’s discovery

requests.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Westaff’s motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice.

2. Grant must proceed with this litigation with or without an attorney. The Court will

no longer accept Grant’s lack of counsel as an excuse for her failure to comply with her

obligations in this litigation.

3. No later than November 16, 2005, Grant shall serve Westaff with her initial

disclosures, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

4. No later than November 16, 2005, Grant shall serve Westaff with her responses

to Westaff’s previously-served First Set of Interrogatories, and First Set of Requests for

Production of Documents.

5. No later than November 23, 2005, at a time and place selected by Westaff, Grant

shall appear for her deposition. Westaff shall serve Grant by mail with a notice of

deposition, and also shall file a copy of the notice of deposition with the Court. As Grant

previously has been ordered to check the docket regularly, her failure to receive the notice

of deposition by mail will not be accepted as an excuse for her failure to appear at her

deposition.

6. If Grant fails to comply with any of the above-referenced deadlines, or to comply

with any of her other obligations in this litigation without good cause, the instant action will

be DISMISSED with prejudice.

This order terminates Docket No. 52.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00277-MMC Document 67 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2