Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00701/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00701-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW PETERSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THOMSON INT’L, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB

ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION 

OF DISPUTED ISSUES

(Doc. 61)

Pending before the Court is the “Joint Request for Court Resolution of the Disputed 

Issues” of Defendant Thomson International, Inc. and Plaintiff Carson Brenda. (Doc. 61). As set 

forth in the introductory paragraph of the joint filing, the parties’ request is made pursuant to 

Rules 30, 34 and 37, Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff does not oppose the relief sough by Defendant. See 

id. p. 7 (“Plaintiff counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Carson Brenda (Dkt. 

60) and has no position other than what is stated in the motion.”). Accordingly, the Court 

construes the parties’ joint filing as an unopposed motion to compel.

Background

Plaintiffs are eight individuals from three different states and Canada that allege during 

June and July 2020, they suffered damages after consuming Salmonella-contaminated onions that 

Defendant introduced into the stream of commerce. Relevant here, Plaintiff Brenda alleges he 

consumed a tainted onion on or around July 1, 2020, and suffered shortly afterwards a number of 

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 64 Filed 02/02/24 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

2

symptoms that required treatment and hospitalization. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 49-54. He seeks recovery for 

medical care, lost income and other damages. Plaintiffs claim Defendant is strictly liable for 

selling an unreasonably dangerous and defective food product, and that Defendant may also be 

liable under breach of warranty, negligence, and negligence per se theories of recovery. 

Defendant contends its onions were not contaminated while in its possession, custody and control 

and it did not cause any Salmonella outbreak that harmed Plaintiffs.

On September 15, 2022, Defendant served Request for Production of Documents, Set 

One, upon Plaintiff Brenda. (Doc. 61 pp. 2-3). The discovery request directed Plaintiff Brenda to 

produce a copy of the front and back of his driver’s license which Defendant requires in order to 

seek relevant records from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Id. Plaintiff 

Brenda never produced the document. Id. (citing Chen Decl., ¶ 5.).

On February 17, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff Brenda transmitted to Defendant an executed 

CDC authorization form that Defendant requires to facilitate the CDC’s provision of relevant 

records to Defendant; however, the authorization form was unnotarized. Despite Defendant’s 

request of Plaintiff Brenda to provide a notarized CDC authorization form, Plaintiff Brenda has 

not provided Defendant with the requested, notarized form. Id. (citing Chen Decl., ¶ 8).

Separately, Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff Brenda to occur on January 18, 

2024. Id. p. 3. Despite providing more than six weeks’ advance notice, Plaintiff Brenda did not 

appear for his deposition. Id.

In connection with each of the three discovery issues summarized above, counsel for 

Plaintiff Brenda has informed Defendant she has been unable to contact Plaintiff. Id. Counsel for 

Plaintiff Brenda separately has moved to withdraw from representation on the grounds that, over 

the past approximately four months, Plaintiff Brenda has not responded to counsel’s 

communications. (Doc. 60-1).

Legal Standard

“Litigants are entitled to seek from each other discovery of information that is “relevant to 

the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Generally, if a party responding to a 

discovery request fails to comply with the request, the propounding party may seek relief from 

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 64 Filed 02/02/24 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

court through a motion to compel. “[T]he party moving to compel bears the burden of 

demonstrating why the [responding party’s] objections are not justified.” Harris v. Quillen, No. 

1:17-cv-01370-DAD-SAB (PC), 2020 WL 4251069, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2020) (citing cases). 

“This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of 

the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and 

why the responding party’s objections are not meritorious.” Id.

Discussion

Here, no party disputes that the documents for which Defendant seeks production and the 

demand that Plaintiff Brenda appear for deposition are relevant and appropriate under Rules 26 

and 34. Indeed, the Court previously has determined that the types of documents at issue here are 

relevant. (Doc. 36). Plaintiff Brenda offers no reason for withholding production of either the 

notarized authorization form or copies of his driver’s license. Further, he makes no argument 

why he should not be ordered to appear for deposition. Thus, the Court will grant Defendant’s 

request and order Plaintiff Brenda to produce the requested documents and appear for deposition.

The Court cautions Plaintiff that his failure to make himself available for deposition in 

violation of this Order may be grounds for sanctions, including evidentiary sanctions (see Lanier 

v. San Joaquin Valley Officials Ass’n, No. 1:14-cv-01938-EPG, 2016 WL 4764669, at *8 (E.D. 

Cal. Sept. 12, 2016)), and dismissal of his action. E.g., Jones v. Frazesn, No. 2:09-cv-02758 

RCT, 2009 WL 3254905, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2009) (dismissing action upon plaintiff’s failure 

to appear for continued deposition; Lugo v. Sham, No. C00-11-4MMC(JL)(JCS), 2001 WL 

348984, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2001) (same).

Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s filing construed as an unopposed motion to compel (Doc. 61) is 

GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff shall produce a copy of his driver’s license and a notarized version of his 

signed and executed CDC authorization form no later than February 19, 2024; and

/ / /

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 64 Filed 02/02/24 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

3. Plaintiff shall appear for and complete his deposition no later than February 19, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB Document 64 Filed 02/02/24 Page 4 of 4