Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01644/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01644-4/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

05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUZANNE STANTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

VENETEC INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

AMENDED REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND

FOR SANCTIONS

[Doc. No. 38]

On September 25, 2006, this Court issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the District Judge dismiss this case.

The Report noted Plaintiff’s failure to file objections to Defendant’s

Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and for Sanctions [Doc. No. 38]. 

On September 26, 2006, this Court received in chambers a document

it construes to be Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion. While

the document was only just received, it bears a file stamp dated

September 20, 2006, which indicates that it was, in fact, timely filed.

In this document, entitled “Response to Judge Majors Document # 37-1

Order Setting Special Briefing Schedule for Defendant’s Motion for

Sanctions” (“Response”), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, defense

counsel, the EEOC, this Court and numerous other individuals and

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 43 Filed 09/28/06 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

1 See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that the

Ninth Circuit “liberally construe[s]” pro se filings); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding that a pro se complaint, “however inartfully pleaded,”

must be held to a “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”).

2 While this document is styled as a declaration, Plaintiff did not sign it

under penalty of perjury. As such, Plaintiff’s assertions that her documents were

stolen and/or tampered with have no evidentiary value. 

2 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

entities have engaged in a scheme or other conduct to steal and/or alter

Plaintiff’s documents and legal papers and demands an investigation.

However, Plaintiff fails to adequately address her numerous failures to

respond to Defendant’s discovery requests and repeated failures to

comply with this Court’s orders.

Interpreting Plaintiff’s Response liberally, as is required with

pro se pleadings1, Plaintiff contends that she was unable to produce

documents responsive to Defendant’s discovery requests because all of

her documents have either been stolen or tampered with by Defendant

and/or various other individuals.2 However, Plaintiff provides no

evidence to support her allegations, nor does she explain her complete

failure to respond in any manner to the document requests. Plaintiff

also offers no justification for her failure to respond to the

interrogatories or requests for admission. Finally, Plaintiff asserts

that she did not appear for depositions that were properly noticed by

Defendant because she was physically sick. However, Plaintiff provides

no evidence to support her allegation that she was sick on all of the

relevant dates, nor does she provide any explanation for her failure to

contact defense counsel and to arrange a subsequent deposition date.

With regard to the first deposition for which she failed to appear,

Plaintiff initially tried to cancel the deposition by claiming that she

might have found a new attorney, but when Defendant refused to continue

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 43 Filed 09/28/06 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

3 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

the deposition, Plaintiff called fifteen minutes before the scheduled

deposition and said she was sick and then failed to appear. Def.’s

June 1, 2006 Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 6 at 5 [Doc. No.

24]. In the second instance, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for

her deposition on May 19, 2006. Defense counsel sent a reminder email

to Plaintiff the day before the scheduled deposition and Plaintiff

responded with an email stating that she was not well and she then

failed to appear as ordered. Id., Ex. 12 at 1. In the most recent

incident, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for her deposition on

August 30, 2006. Plaintiff did not contact defense counsel at all; she

merely failed to appear again. Now, Plaintiff claims that she failed

to appear because she was “physically sick.” Plaintiff’s allegations

and statements in her Response do not excuse nor explain her repeated

failures to comply with court orders and her discovery obligations.

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to explain or justify her utter disregard for

this Court’s repeated orders to comply with her discovery obligations

and to appear for deposition. Accordingly, this Court finds that

Plaintiff’s Response does not alter its recommendation that the ultimate

sanction of dismissal is warranted in this case. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 43 Filed 09/28/06 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

4 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court renews its RECOMMENDATION that

the District Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting its

original Report and Recommendation and this Amended Report and

Recommendation, and (2) dismissing the case in its entirety. The

briefing schedule for filing objections to this Amended Report and

Recommendation shall remain as set in the September 25, 2006 Report and

Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 28, 2006

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE LARRY A. BURNS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 43 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 4