Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03739/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03739-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-03739-LHK 

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY STATUS REPORT

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SARAH DOTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-03739-LHK 

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY 

STATUS REPORT

Re: Dkt. No. 23

Plaintiff Sarah Doty (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against the City of Santa Clara and 

Defendant Officers Does 1 through 50 (“Defendant”) on August 18, 2014. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). 

Plaintiff’s allegations stem from two incidents involving Santa Clara police officers, one on June 

18, 2013, at City Hall, and another on December 31, 2013, after Plaintiff called the police in 

response to hearing her neighbor engage in construction activities after-hours.

During a case management conference on June 10, 2015, Defendant indicated that Plaintiff 

had failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, which were served on April 3, 2015. 

ECF No. 22. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed 

with prejudice for failure to prosecute and ordered that Plaintiff must serve substantive responses 

to Defendant’s interrogatories and produce documents responsive to Defendant’s requests for 

Case 5:14-cv-03739-LHK Document 24 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 14-CV-03739-LHK 

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY STATUS REPORT

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

Northern District of California

production. Id. The Court further ordered that “[f]ailure to do so by June 17, 2015, will result in 

an order dismissing this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. The parties were 

ordered to file, by June 18, 2015, a Joint Discovery Status Report. Id.

On June 18, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Status Report (“Report”). ECF No. 

23. Because Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s outstanding interrogatories and requests for 

production, the Court hereby VACATES its prior Order to Show Cause and will not at this time 

dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff must comply with its 

discovery obligations or face future dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

In the “Report,” Defendant contends that Plaintiff violated this Court’s Order by failing to 

produce documents, such as her phone or medical records, in response to Defendant’s requests for 

production. Id. Although the Court is disappointed that Plaintiff failed to produce these 

documents, Plaintiff contends that after a diligent search Plaintiff was unable to locate responsive

documents. Id. The Court cannot Order Plaintiff to produce documents that the Plaintiff does not 

possess. Plaintiff also stated that “Plaintiff has no problem providing any of the requested 

documents once in her possession, control and or once they exist and they are in her possession or 

control.” Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to take prompt and reasonable steps to 

obtain the requested documents from her medical provider(s) and telephone company and to 

provide these records to Defendant. Plaintiff will be precluded from relying on any evidence 

responsive to Defendant’s discovery requests that Plaintiff does not timely produce during 

discovery. 

All future discovery disputes shall be presented to Magistrate Judge Lloyd.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2015 _________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03739-LHK Document 24 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 2