Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05281/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05281-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FANG-YUH HSIEH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5281 PJH (BZ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO REQUEST

ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES

AND TO ORDER DEFENDANTS TO

PRODUCE WITNESSES FOR

DEPOSITION, AND SANCTIONING

PLAINTIFF

I have reviewed plaintiff’s motions for leave to request

additional interrogatories and to order defendants to produce

witnesses for depositions. Plaintiff’s motions are improper

for many reasons, and are therefore DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s motion to order defendants to produce

witnesses for deposition is without merit and fails to comply

with previous orders of this Court, the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the Civil Local Rules. My December 5, 2006

Initial Discovery Order requires parties to “meet in person”

and “participate in a telephone conference with the Court

before filing any discovery motions or other papers.” 

Plaintiff has not done either. Plaintiff’s motion also fails

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 51 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2

to certify that plaintiff has in good faith conferred or

attempted to confer with defendant in an effort to secure the

discovery without court action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(2)(A); Civ. Local R. 37-1. Nor is it clear that

plaintiff complied with Civil Local Rule 30-1 in scheduling

the requested depositions. Without meeting these

requirements, plaintiff’s motion will not be entertained by

this Court. 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to request additional

interrogatories is also deficient. It fails to comply with

Civil Local Rule 33-3, which requires that such motions “be

accompanied by a memorandum which sets forth each proposed

interrogatory and explains in detail why it is necessary to

propound the additional questions.” Plaintiff has not

provided any explanation of why additional interrogatories are

needed, nor is the need for such interrogatories plainly

apparent to me.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with orders of this Court,

and has failed to comply with almost all Federal and Local

rules applicable to these motions. Proceeding in this manner

is disruptive and unacceptable. Plaintiff has been previously

cautioned to comply with all Federal and Local rules, and yet

continues in his unacceptable course of conduct.

For the above-stated reasons, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to order defendants to produce

witnesses for deposition is DENIED, without prejudice. If

plaintiff wishes to depose these witnesses, he must comply

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 51 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Rules in seeking to do so.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to request additional

interrogatories is DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiff may

re-file such motion, but only if he provides an explanation of

why he need additional interrogatories, in accordance with

Civil Local Rule 33-3. 

3. Plaintiff is SANCTIONED in the amount of $100,

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 1-4 and Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 16(f) and 37. Plaintiff shall pay $100 to the Clerk

of the Court no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 13, 2007.

4. Plaintiff is cautioned that any further failure to

comply with my orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

or the Civil Local Rules, may result in further and more

severe sanctions.

Dated: June 25, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\HSIEH\ORDER.DENY.PLAINTIFF'S.MOTIONS.AND.ORDER.SANCTIONS.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 51 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 3