Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01114/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01114-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

The court takes note that this motion is virtually identical to the “Motion for an Award of 1

Sanctions” filed in Dodson v. Dollar Tree, Inc., et al., Civ. S-04-1068 MCE CMK. See Valerio

v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.

1981) (stating that judicial notice may be taken of court records.) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

James Sanford

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1114 DFL CMK 

vs.

Roseville Cycle, Inc, et. al., 

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff, James Sanford, filed this action against Roseville Cycle, Inc.,

Sacramento Motor Sports, Inc. and Cynthia Johnston alleging that he was discriminated against

by encountering various architectural damages in violation of the ADA and California law. 

Currently before the court is plaintiff’s September 13, 2005 “Notice of Motion and Motion to

Compel Discovery and Sanctions,” which was noticed for hearing on October 11, 2005. 

In his boiler plate motion to compel plaintiff asserts that defendant, Cynthia 1

Johnston, has failed to respond to any of his discovery requests. He states that he has “sent

three letters (including one with this motion) seeking a response to his discovery request.” 

Plaintiff has not attached these letters as exhibits to his motion, but states that copies will be

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/06/05 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

2

provided “at the Court’s request.” Plaintiff’s motion does not seek production of any discovery

but, instead, seeks only to sanction defendant Johnston by prohibiting her testifying or

introducing evidence at trial. A review of the docket reveals that Ms. Johnson filed an answer on

January 19, 2005, and that she is represented by counsel. 

The court finds that a hearing in this matter would serve little purpose at this time. 

As the date for discovery completion is July 12, 2006, the harsh sanction of prohibiting defendant

Johnston from testifying at trial or introducing evidence is unwarranted. However, the court does

not take failure to respond to discovery requests lightly. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The hearing set for plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Sanctions set

for October 11, 2005 in Redding is VACATED;

2. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions of $500 is denied without prejudice to renewal

at a later time and;

3. Defendant Cynthia Johnston is ordered to, within fifteen days from the date

this order is served, show good cause why this court should not impose sanctions for her failure

to respond to discovery requests. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition

of sanctions. 

DATED: October 5, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/06/05 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

3

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/06/05 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

Case 2:04-cv-01114-JAM-CMK Document 16 Filed 10/06/05 Page 4 of 4