Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01715-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RHODES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1715 MCE EFB PS

vs.

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS 

CORPORATION, et al., 

ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

On December 20, 2006, this case was before the undersigned for consideration of

defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition and responses to interrogatories and requests

for production. The parties filed a joint stipulation on December 13, 2006, as required by Local

Rule 37-251(c) and this court’s November 27, 2006 order. The hearing was also held to

establish a briefing schedule for the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Anthony

Brill appeared on behalf of defendant, and Andre Rhodes appeared on his own behalf. Having

heard oral argument and considered all submitted papers, the court issues the following order. 

I. MOTION TO COMPEL

A. Deposition

On November 22, 2006, defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition and

responses to interrogatories and requests for production. Mr. Brill attempted to depose plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 93 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 The amended complaint does not include a claim for emotional distress. Moreover, at

the hearing, plaintiff confirmed that he is not pursuing any claim for emotional distress or other

health-related damages. Based on that representation, defendant withdrew its motion to compel

more complete responses to Interrogatory no. 15 and Requests for Production, nos. 14-16. 

2

on November 10, 2006, as previously noticed. After fewer than thirty minutes, plaintiff became

argumentative and refused to answer any further questions. Plaintiff made no specific objections

to the questions; he simply refused to answer any question without a court order. Accordingly,

defendant filed this motion to compel plaintiff to testify at a deposition on January 5, 2007,

concerning all matters discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, including, but not limited to, (1)

plaintiff’s claims against defendant, (2) EDS’ defenses to plaintiff’s claims, (3) plaintiff’s

damages, and (4) foundational issues. For the reasons stated at the hearing, defendant’s motion

to compel plaintiff’s is GRANTED. Mr. Rhodes shall appear for the deposition on January 5,

2007, at a place and time to be arranged by the parties. 

B. Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

Defendant also seeks to compel complete responses to interrogatories and requests for

production, which were served on plaintiff in September 2006. Defendant contacted plaintiff

concerning his deficient responses by letter dated November 6, 2006. Given plaintiff’s failure to

supplement his responses, defendant brought this motion. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff shall provide complete, verified responses to defendant’s Interrogatories, nos. 1,

2, 5, 7, and 9-14 within ten (10) days of service of this order.1 Plaintiff’s responses shall comply

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b) and Local Rule 33-250. Plaintiff shall also provide within ten (10)

days of service of this order complete responses to defendant’s Requests for Production, nos. 17,

20-23, 25, 29, 34, 35, 37. Plaintiff’s responses shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) and Local

Rule 34-250. 

////

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 93 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

C. Sanctions

Plaintiff’s conduct throughout the discovery process thus far warrants sanctions. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3), 37(a)(2)(B), and 37(a)(4), the court orders plaintiff to pay

defendant’s counsel $1,000 for fees incurred in bringing this motion. Plaintiff shall pay this

amount to defendant’s counsel within sixty (60) days of service of this order. As discussed in

detail at the hearing, this figure represents only a fraction of the actual costs incurred by

defendant in bringing this motion. This sanction is imposed as required by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and also serves to caution plaintiff that disobeying the court’s order and/or

further failing to comply with both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules will

result in further sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See E.D.

Cal. L.R. 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); Valley Eng’r, Inc. v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d

1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 1998). 

II. BRIEFING SCHEDULE

As discussed at the hearing, the parties shall comply with the following briefing

schedule: (1) defendant shall file its cross-motion for summary judgment and its opposition to

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (to be filed together as a single brief) by March, 16,

2007 (2) plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment and his

reply to defendant’s opposition (to be filed together as a single brief) by April 16, 2007; (3)

defendant shall file its reply to plaintiff’s opposition to the cross-motion by April 26, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 21, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01715-MCE -EFB Document 93 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 3