Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

GLORIA GRENING WOLK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PHILIP R. GREEN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5025 BZ

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

On February 1, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for

sanctions for discovery abuse. Plaintiff seeks various

sanctions in the forms of: evidence preclusion; issue

preclusion; an adverse influence jury instruction; case

terminating sanctions; and monetary sanctions. Plaintiff

avers that defendant has engaged in “perpetual gamesmanship”

by refusing to: meet and confer; respond truthfully to

discovery; and obey my discovery orders. 

In my Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

issued on February 1, 2008, I denied plaintiff’s request for

sanctions without prejudice, noting that I was considering

issuing sanctions sua sponte due to such matters as

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 188 Filed 03/21/08 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

1 The instant motion and her previous motion do not

comply with Civil Local Rule 37, or Rules 7-2 and 7-8. I have

previously denied plaintiff’s motions for sanctions for failing

to comply with the Civil Local Rules.

2 She does acknowledge any expenses incurred were

minimal.

2

defendant’s repeated refusals to produce an entire copy of his

malpractice insurance policy.

Plaintiff’s moving papers focus on alleged falsehoods in

defendant’s responses instead of setting forth the facts and

circumstances supporting her request for sanctions as required

by Civil Local Rule 37-3(b)(1) or addressing the malpractice

insurance policy. I find that the sorts of sanctions she

seeks are not warranted by the record she presented. 

In her reply papers, she contends that her previous

motion to compel satisfied the requirements of that rule.1

Plaintiff acknowledges that because of her pro se status she

would not be entitled to attorney’s fees. Nevertheless, she

does not provide an itemization of the expenses she incurred

because of defendant’s failure to comply with her discovery

requests in general or produce the insurance policy in

particular2

. Civil Local Rule 37(b)(3). 

I deem that oral arguments are unnecessary to resolve

this motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions is DENIED.

Dated: March 21,2008

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 188 Filed 03/21/08 Page 2 of 2