Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06142/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06142-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

PATRICIA HUIZACHE,

Intervenor,

v.

SIZZLER USA RESTAURANTS, INC.

Defendant. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-06-6142 J F PVT

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT

On June 26, 2007, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for a

hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Civil Contempt. Plaintiff brought its motion based on

Defendant’s failure to comply with this Court’s Order of April 10, 2007, which required Defendant

to produce all responsive documents to the EEOC’s Requests for Documents and Requests for

Interrogatories no later than April 20, 2007.

I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff EEOC brought this action on behalf of Patricia Huizache alleging that Defendant

Case 5:06-cv-06142-JF Document 22 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER, page 2

subjected Ms. Huizache to a hostile environment based on her sex and national origin. 

At a Case Management Conference on January 12, 2007, defense counsel, Glen Mertens,

was personally served with two discovery requests. The set interrogatories consisted of only two

queries: 1) Name and contact information of employees of Defendant’s Redwood City Sizzler

restaurant during the year 2004, and 2) the job titles of these employees (Declaration of Linda

Ordonio-Dixon, ¶ 3) (hereinafter “Dixon Decl.”). The document requests included documents

regarding the company’s investigation of harassment, documents regarding anti-discrimination

policies, training and procedures, and the personnel files of Ms. Huizache and the alleged harasser,

Daniel Viera. 

On March 9, 2007 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to the discovery. At that

time, despite numerous attempts by the EEOC to meet and confer, Defendant had not responded in

any way to the discovery requests. On March 12, 2007, the Defendant produced the personnel

records of Ms. Huizache and Daniel Viera via attachment to an e-mail. The e-mail stated that Mr.

Mertens would try to have verified discovery responses sent later that day. The EEOC, however, did

not receive verified responses until April 6, 2007. (Dixon Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 2.) The response

promised that additional documents would be produced, but Plaintiff never received any additional

documents. (Dixon Decl. ¶ 11.)

 On April 10, 2007, after Defendant failed to file an opposition, this Court granted Plaintiff’s

motion and ordered that discovery be produced no later than April 20, 2007. Defendant, however,

did not comply. On April 27, 2007, Plaintiff notified Defendant via email that a motion for

contempt would be filed if responses were not provided. (Dixon Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. 3.) The parties

spoke on the phone the same day, but Defendant gave no indication as to whether or not such

information and/or documents were going to be produced. Plaintiff filed this motion for contempt

on May 22, 2007. Defendant filed no opposition to this motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Legal Standard for Contempt

In order to show civil contempt, “The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and

convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court. The

Case 5:06-cv-06142-JF Document 22 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER, page 3

burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” F.T.C. v.

Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). 

B. Procedure for Magistrate Judge in Contempt Proceedings

Magistrate Judges’ contempt authority is spelled out in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6). Absent

action in the presence of the Magistrate Judge, in a civil consent action, or a criminal misdemeanor

case, a Magistrate Judge must certify contempt to the district court. The statute provides: 

the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may serve

or cause to be served, upon any person whose behavior is brought into question under

this paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a district judge upon a

day certain to show cause why that person should not be adjudged in contempt by

reason of the facts so certified. The district judge shall thereupon hear the evidence as

to the act or conduct complained of and, if it is such as to warrant punishment, punish

such person in the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt committed

before a district judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6). 

III. DISCUSSION

Defense counsel, Glen Mertens, appeared at the hearing and stated that he deliberately did

not file an opposition to the motion for contempt because he was in violation of the court order. The

Defendant’s failure to oppose contempt is not acceptable. Being in violation of a court order is not a

valid reason to fail to oppose a motion for contempt. Indeed, neither the failure to comply with a

court order nor the failure to oppose the contempt motion is acceptable behavior for an attorney

appearing before this court. Mr. Mertens also asserted that the motion was moot because he had

provided the missing interrogatory responses. Mr. Mertens is mistaken for two reasons. First, he

has not explained the failure to comply with the April 10, 2007 order. Second, questions remain

about the sufficiency of the document production. 

The documents provided indicate that more documents exist, but defense counsel asserted

that they have provided everything they possess and anything else that once existed has been

destroyed. This type of blanket assertion is also unacceptable. Defendant must describe its good

faith effort to locate all responsive documents and must explain to opposing counsel what has

happened to the missing documents. It is not enough to simply state that whatever has not been

produced does not exist. 

Case 5:06-cv-06142-JF Document 22 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER, page 4

During the June 26, 2007 hearing, this court ordered a recess during which counsel for both

parties were to confer to try to resolve this discovery dispute. Counsel agreed that Defendant will

verify that the documents produced are in fact all that they possess. Additionally, Defendant will

provide the person or persons most knowledgeable about the responsive documents for a deposition

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). 

At this time, this motion remains under submission and Plaintiff is invited to renew the

motion if Defendant fails to provide the promised additional discovery. This court is currently

prepared to certify to the District Court that: 1) On April 10, 2007, the court granted Plaintiff’s

unopposed motion to compel discovery responses and ordered Defendant to provide complete

responses by April 20, 2007; 2) Defendant did not comply with the April 10, 2007 order; 3) Plaintiff

filed a motion for contempt on May 22, 2007; 4) Defendant failed to oppose the motion for

contempt; 5) Defendant has offered no valid explanation or justification for its failure to comply

with either its discovery obligations or the April 10, 2007 order. 

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Civil Contempt

REMAINS UNDER SUBMISSION. Defendant is ordered to provide, no later than August 31,

2007, the person or persons most knowledgeable about the documents sought for deposition

pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). Defendant is ordered to provide verification by August 31, 2007

affirming that they have produced all requested documents in their possession. The verification

shall include a statement by Mr. Mertens, under penalty of perjury, describing: 1) all efforts made to

locate responsive documents, including the documents described in Ms. Dixon’s letter of April 20,

2007 and 2) the circumstances under which any responsive documents were lost, destroyed, or

otherwise made unavailable for production. 

Dated: July 5, 2007

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06142-JF Document 22 Filed 07/05/07 Page 4 of 4