Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02061/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02061-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISHNA REDDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRECYSE SOLUTIONS LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING TERMINATING 

SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF‟S FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

(ECF No. 98, 111, 112, 113, 114, 123) 

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

Currently before the Court are two motions to compel discovery and for terminating 

sanctions filed by Defendant Precyse Solutions and a cross-motion for sanctions and a motion to 

stay the action filed by Plaintiff Krishna Reddy. 

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Krishna Reddy, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on 

December 19, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff‟s complaint, and on April 12, 

2013, an order issued directing Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court 

that she was willing to proceed only on those claims found to be cognizable in the screening 

order. (ECF No. 5.) 

Plaintiff filed motions for appointment of counsel and to file court pleadings 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 16
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

electronically, which were denied on May 10, 2015. (ECF Nos. 6, 8, 9.) Plaintiff filed a motion 

for reconsideration of the order denying her motions which was denied by District Judge Anthony 

W. Ishii on June 11, 2013. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) Although Plaintiff received an extension of time 

to file an amended complaint, she did not comply with the order to file an amended complaint or 

notify the Court of her willingness to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable, so on June 

18, 2013, findings and recommendations issued recommending dismissing the action for failure 

to prosecute. (ECF No.12.) On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed an objection to the findings and 

recommendations, and on July 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed another motion to set aside and vacate the 

order denying appointment of counsel and electronic filing privileges and a motion to stay the 

proceedings while she filed an appeal of the motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 13, 

14, 15.) 

On October 30, 2013, Judge Ishii issued an order denying Plaintiff‟s motions to stay the 

proceedings, for reconsideration and for change of venue. (ECF No. 18.) The October 30, 2013

order granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to either file an amended complaint or notify the 

Court that she was willing to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff 

was further advised that her failure to comply with the order would result in this action being 

dismissed without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff did not 

comply with the October 30, 2013 order and this action was dismissed on December 6, 2013. 

(ECF No. 19.) 

On January 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the order dismissing this action, 

which was granted on January 15, 2014. (ECF Nos. 21-22, 27.) On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff 

filed a notice that she did not intend to file an amended complaint, and a request to certify the 

screening order for appeal and stay the proceedings while she appealed the denial of the motion 

for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 31.) On March 4, 2014, Judge Ishii issued an order 

denying Plaintiff‟s motion for certification of non-final orders for appeal and the request to stay 

the proceedings, and dismissing certain claims and defendants from the proceedings. (ECF No. 

33.) This action is currently proceeding on the complaint, filed December 19, 2012, against 

Defendant Precyse for disparate treatment in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 16
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

state law claims for disparate treatment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, breach of 

contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and wage laws. (Id. at 3-4.) 

The Court ordered the United States Marshal to initiate service of process. (ECF No. 36.) 

Defendant filed an answer on June 2, 2014. (ECF No. 40.) On August 26, 2014, a scheduling 

conference was conducted and a scheduling order issued on August 28, 2014. (ECF Nos. 44, 45.) 

Thereafter, this action proceeded unremarkably, until Defendant propounded discovery on 

Plaintiff. Therein lies the substance of the current motions before the Court.

On March 11, 2015, Defendant served discovery requests and a notice of deposition on 

Plaintiff which she claims she did not receive. On March 27, 2015, Defendant served an 

amended notice of deposition on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not appear for her deposition but on April 

6, 2015, filed a motion for a protective order and request for change of venue. (ECF Nos. 63, 65.) 

On April 10, 2015, having realized that Plaintiff was claiming to have not received the discovery 

requests and refused to stipulate to extend the discovery deadline, Defendant served Plaintiff with 

copies of the discovery requests and filed an ex parte application to amend the scheduling order. 

(ECF No. 68, 69.) On April 13, 2015, an order issued setting a hearing on the motion to amend 

the scheduling order for May 6, 2015. (ECF No. 71.) Defendant filed a motion to amend the 

scheduling order and a second ex parte application to shorten time on April 14, 2015. (ECF Nos. 

72-74.) On April 15, 2015, an order issued granting the application to shorten time. (ECF No. 

76.) 

On April 20, 2015, Defendant noticed Plaintiff‟s deposition for May 8, 2015. On this 

same date, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to amend the scheduling order and cross 

motion for sanctions with a hearing set before Judge Ishii. (ECF No. 78.) On April 20, 2015, 

Judge Ishii reset the motion for sanctions before the undersigned. (ECF No. 79.) On April 22, 

2015, Defendant filed oppositions to Plaintiff‟s motions for a protective order and change of 

venue. (ECF Nos. 80, 81.) On April 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Plaintiff‟s second 

application for an order shortening time and motion for terminating sanctions. (ECF No. 83.) On 

April 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed two replies to Defendant‟s motions and filed a motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF Nos. 84, 85, 86-90.) 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 16
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

On May 4, 2015, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff‟s motion for a protective 

order and ordered Plaintiff to submit to a deposition and respond to Defendant‟s discovery 

requests. (ECF No. 91.) The Court found good cause to extend the discovery deadline to May 

21, 2015. (Id.) On May 6, 2015, Plaintiff objected to the April 20, 2015 deposition notice and 

sent a notice of unavailability stating that she was unavailable from May 7, 2015 to May 15, 

2015. Plaintiff did not appear for the May 8, 2015 deposition. 

On May 13, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff‟s compliance with the 

May 4, 2015 order and a motion for sanctions and an application for an order shortening time. 

(ECF Nos. 93, 94.) On May 14, 2015, Judge Ishii vacated the hearing on Plaintiff‟s motion for 

summary judgment and referred the motion to the undersigned. (ECF No. 95.) On this same 

date, this Court granted Defendant‟s motion for an order shortening time. (ECF No. 97.)

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion and a request for sanctions, a motion for 

reconsideration of this Court‟s May 4, 2015 order, and a motion to disqualify the undersigned on 

May 21, 2015. (ECF Nos. 100, 101, 103.) On this same date, Defendant filed a second motion to 

compel. (ECF No. 98.) On May 22, 2015, Defendant filed a reply to the motion to compel and 

District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an order denying Plaintiff‟s objections to the May 4, 2015 

order and motion to disqualify the undersigned. (ECF Nos. 105, 107.) On May 26, 2015, an 

order issued granting Defendant‟s motion to compel and request for sanctions, and Plaintiff filed 

a motion for reconsideration of the May 22, 2015 order. (ECF Nos. 108, 109.) On June 2, 2015, 

this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff that she was not to e-mail documents to the 

courtroom deputy or contact the courtroom deputy with requests for action unless directed to do 

so by the Court. (ECF No. 110.) 

On June 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant‟s motion to compel and a cross 

motion for terminating sanctions. (ECF No. 111.) Defendant filed a reply on June 10, 2015. 

(ECF Nos. 112-113.) On June 11, 2015, Defendant filed a third motion to compel the deposition 

of Plaintiff and request for terminating sanctions and an application for an order shortening time. 

(ECF Nos. 114-115.) On June 12, 2015, Judge Ishii issued an order denying Plaintiff‟s motion 

for reconsideration with prejudice; this Court issued an order granting Defendant‟s application for 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 16
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

5

an order shortening time; and Plaintiff filed objections to the May 26, 2015 order granting 

sanctions. (ECF No. 116.) On June 16, 2015, Judge Ishii issued an order denying Plaintiff‟s 

motion for reconsideration, and Plaintiff filed a notice of filing a petition for writ of mandamus, 

request to take hearing off calendar and stay the proceedings, response to the order re e-mails to 

the Court, and a response to the order granting Defendant‟s application to shorten time on the 

motion to compel Plaintiff‟s attendance at the deposition. (ECF Nos. 120, 122, 123, 124, 125.)

Oral argument on Defendant‟s motions to compel discovery responses and Plaintiff‟s 

deposition was held on June 17, 2015. (ECF No. 121.) Despite the orders requiring her 

appearance at the June 17, 2015 hearing, Plaintiff did not appear. Plaintiff sent several e-mails to 

the courtroom deputy in violation of this Court‟s June 2, 2015 order. At the June 17, 2015 

hearing, Plaintiff appeared telephonically and counsel Mark Posard personally appeared for 

Defendant. (Id.) Although the Court allowed Plaintiff to appear telephonically for the purpose of 

determining if she would comply with orders of the Court, Plaintiff violated the Court‟s orders by 

refusing to personally appear at the hearing. Having considered the moving, opposition and reply 

papers, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, as well as the Court‟s file, the Court issues 

the following findings and recommendations.

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a party fails to obey 

an order to provide or permit discovery, the court may issue further just orders, which may 

include the imposition of sanctions upon the disobedient party, including dismissal of the action 

or proceeding in whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). “[T]he court must order the 

disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, 

including attorney‟s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or 

other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). 

III.

DISCUSSION

Initially, the Court declines to address Plaintiff‟s numerous contentions that have been 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 5 of 16
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

6

raised and addressed previously by this Court and Judge Ishii‟s orders. Suffice it to say that 

Plaintiff‟s disagreement with the orders of this Court are not a reason for this Court to disqualify 

itself nor does it excuse Plaintiff from complying with this Court‟s orders. Additionally, 

Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration of the order denying recusal of the undersigned and to set 

aside the prior orders of this Court has been denied with prejudice. (ECF No. 116.)

Plaintiff opposes these motions asserting that both this Court and Judge Ishii have held 

that Defendant was not diligent in conducting discovery in this action and was therefore not 

entitled to an amended scheduling order. Contrary to Plaintiff‟s assertion in her opposition to 

these motions, neither this Court nor Judge Ishii has found that Defendant was not diligent in 

conducting discovery in this action. This Court found that Defendant established good cause to 

extend the discovery deadline based upon Plaintiff‟s assertion that she did not receive the 

discovery requests and notice of deposition propounded within the discovery deadline. (Order 

Denying Plaintiff‟s Motion for a Protective Order 12, ECF No. 91.) In denying Plaintiff‟s motion 

for reconsideration, Judge Ishii found that the decision was not erroneous, and the exercise of 

discretion to amend the scheduling order was not unreasonable. (Order Denying Plaintiff‟s 

Motion for Reconsideration 4, ECF No. 107.) The Court has determined that Defendant 

established good cause to extend the discovery deadline for Plaintiff to appear for her deposition 

and respond to Defendant‟s discovery requests and Plaintiff is required to comply with the order 

of the Court.

A. Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court‟s order to respond to 

discovery requests and seeks terminating sanctions or at a minimum $3,290.00 in costs for 

bringing this motion. In the alternative to a dismissal sanction, Defendant seeks an order 

compelling Plaintiff to provide complete responses to Defendant‟s request for production of 

documents and production of all responsive documents, complete verified responses to 

Defendant‟s request for interrogatories, and an amended response to Defendant‟s requests for 

admissions. Defendants seek evidentiary sanctions of preclusion of evidence and modification of 

the scheduling order to permit discovery in this action to be completed. 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 6 of 16
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

7

Following this Court‟s order for Plaintiff to respond to the discovery requests, Defendant 

contends that Plaintiff asserted improper and belated general objections and a blanket statement 

that her responses and documentation can be found in her initial disclosures, complaint, or as 

supporting documents in her motion for summary judgment. Defendant contends that Plaintiff 

has demonstrated that she refuses to participate in discovery in this action which precludes 

Defendant from investigating even the most basic facts underlying the allegations in the 

complaint. 

1. Request for Production of Documents

Defendant propounded ninety-one requests for productions of documents. (ECF No. 90-1 

at 13-27.) In her objections to the May 4, 2015 order denying Plaintiff‟s motion for a protective 

order (ECF No. 91), Plaintiff provided “as a courtesy”, responses to Defendant‟s discovery

requests. (ECF No. 98-1 at 80.) In response to Defendant‟s specific requests for production of 

documents, Plaintiff set forth ten general objections to the requests. (Id. at 81-82.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 provides that a party may serve upon the opposing 

party a request for production of documents. Rule 34 requires the responding party to respond to 

each item and for each item or category either allow inspection or state an object to the request. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Objections to a part of a request must specify the part and permit 

inspection of the rest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). The responding party must produce the 

documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to 

respond to the categories in the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E). 

Initially, Plaintiff‟s general objections, set forth in her objections to the May 4, 2015 order 

do not comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is

incorrect that she does not have to respond to each request or category of requests. Plaintiff is

required to respond to each request and identify the document or documents that are responsive to 

the individual requests or state a proper objection to the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). 

Plaintiff has neither responded to the requests, nor indicated which documents are responsive to 

each request. Plaintiff‟s statement that she has no other responsive documents other than those 

that have already been produced in initial disclosures and in support of her motion for summary 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 7 of 16
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

8

judgment is insufficient to comply with the Federal Rules. “Defendant is entitled to 

individualized, complete responses to each of the requests, as numbered and identified in the 

requests, accompanied by production of each of the documents responsive to the request, 

regardless of whether the documents have already been produced.” Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 

502, 505 (E.D. Cal. 2006). Rule 37 provides that “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, 

or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 

Finally, Plaintiff cannot meet her discovery obligations by attaching documents to a motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 34 in responding to the request for 

production of documents. 

2. Special Interrogatories

Defendant propounded twenty-one special interrogatories on Plaintiff.1 (ECF No. 98-1 at 

7-10.) In her objection to the May 4, 2015 order, Plaintiff incorporated her ten objections and 

stated that she had no other responses other than those mentioned in the complaint and her 

declaration in support of her motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 98-1 at 83.) 

“A party answering interrogatories has an affirmative duty to furnish any and all 

information available to the party.” Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 612 (S.D. Cal. 2012) 

(quoting 7 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 33.102[1], at 33–72 (footnote 

omitted)). Rule 33 requires that each interrogatory must be answered “separately and fully in 

writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). The responding party, if unable to provide the 

requested information, may not simply refuse to answer. Bryant, 285 F.R.D. at 612. “The 

responding party must state under oath that he is unable to provide the information and must 

describe the efforts he used to obtain the information.” Id. (citations omitted).

Plaintiff‟s response in the objections to the May 4, 2015 order did not comply with Rule

33. Plaintiff did not answer each interrogatory separately in writing. Further, Plaintiff did not 

answer under oath. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 33 in responding to 

Defendant‟s special interrogatories. 

 

1

The Court notes that there the last two interrogatories are both number 20. (ECF No. 98-1 at 10.) 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 8 of 16
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

9

3. Requests for Admissions

Defendant propounded four requests for admission on Plaintiff.2 (ECF No. 98-1 at 11-

12.) In her objections to the May 4, 2015 order, Plaintiff provided responses to Defendant‟s 

requests for admissions. (ECF No. 98-1 at 83-84.) 

Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may object to a 

request for admission. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5). Defendant‟s request for admission no. 4 stated, 

“Admit that you were an at-will employee throughout your employment with Precyse.” (ECF 

No. 98-1 at 12.) In her objections to the May 4, 2015 order, Plaintiff objected on the grounds of 

relevancy, stating “This request has been made in bad faith by the defendant as it is seeking legal 

theory that is not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation as I was terminated by the 

defendant „for cause‟, which, the defendant is fully aware of.” (ECF No. 98-1 at 84-1.)

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party‟s claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy is broadly defined for the purposes of discovery, but it does have 

“ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 

2006) (citations omitted). “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or 

less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in 

determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff‟s objection is improper. The Court agrees. Whether 

Plaintiff is an at-will employee is not a legal theory irrelevant to the subject matter of the 

litigation, but is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff is 

asserting a breach of contract action and her position as an at-will employee is relevant here. 

Plaintiff was required to provide a response to the request for admission. 

4. Deposition of Plaintiff

On May 27, 2015, Defendant noticed Plaintiff‟s third deposition for June 10, 2015. 

 

2

The Court notes that there the last two requests for admission are both number 3. (ECF No. 98-1 at 12.) 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 9 of 16
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

10

Despite this Court‟s prior orders and Judge Ishii‟s denial of her motion for reconsideration, 

Plaintiff refused to appear for the deposition. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has demonstrated 

that she will not comply with the orders of the Court and requests monetary and terminating 

sanctions. The Court finds that Plaintiff has willfully failed to comply with orders of the Court to 

submit to a deposition in this matter. The Court has issued two prior orders directing Plaintiff to 

attend her deposition and she has refused to comply, sanctions are appropriate for Plaintiff‟s 

failure to comply with the discovery orders issued in this action. 

B. Sanctions

1. Defendant‟s Motion for Sanctions

Defendant seeks terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff‟s failure to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court‟s orders. The Court finds that additional 

sanctions are warranted. Defendant argues that a terminating sanction is necessary in light of 

Plaintiff‟s steadfast refusal to obey Court orders despite the previous sanction imposed. During 

the June 17, 2015 hearing, Plaintiff stated that she does not consider this Court‟s orders lawful 

and will not obey them. 

In the Ninth Circuit, sanctions are appropriate only in “extreme circumstances” and where 

the violation is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Fair Housing of Marin v. 

Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002.) (quoting United States v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., Inc., 

857 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted)). Disobedient conduct not shown to be 

outside the litigant's control meets this standard. Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th 

Cir.1994). In North Am. Watch Corp. v. Princess Ermine Jewels, 786 F.2d 1447, 1451 (9th 

Cir.1986), the Ninth Circuit held that “[b]elated compliance with discovery orders does not 

preclude the imposition of sanctions. Fair Housing of Marin, 285 F.3d at 905 (also citing Nat'l 

Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976) (per curiam); G-K Props. 

v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, 577 F.2d 645, 647-48 (9th Cir.1978)).

Further, the Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper 

conduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 

447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). This includes the 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 10 of 16
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

11

inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has “engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent 

with the orderly administration of justice.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. V. Natural Beverage Distrib., 

69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Wyle v. R. J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 

(9th Cir. 1983)). Because dismissal is such a harsh penalty, it should only be used in extreme 

circumstances. Wyle, 709 F.3d at 589. 

Since a terminating sanction is very severe it is only justified by “willfulness, bad faith, 

and fault.” Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills (“Connecticut 

General”), 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit has devised a five-part test to 

determine whether a terminating sanction under Rule 37(b)(2) is just: “(1) the public's interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of 

prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on 

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Connecticut General, 482 F.3d at 

1096 (citations omitted). The fifth factor contains three subparts: 1) whether the court has 

considered lessor sanctions; 2) whether the lessor sanctions were tried; and 3) whether the 

recalcitrant party has been warned about the possibility of terminating sanctions. Id. 

When the sanction is being considered for violation of a court order, the first and second 

factors will generally support terminating sanctions and the fourth factor will weigh against 

default, therefore the third and fourth factors are decisive. Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 

F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990). These factors are not a mechanical means of determining a 

sanction, but are a way for the district court to consider whether terminating sanctions are just. 

Valley Engineers Inc. v. Electric Engineering Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). 

The public interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and the Court‟s need to 

manage the docket weigh in favor of terminating sanctions. This action has been proceeding 

since 2012 and the delay that has occurred has been solely due to Plaintiff challenging and 

attempting to avoid complying with the orders of the Court. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff 

has delayed the action by filing notices and motions on the eve of a hearing without providing the 

opposing party or the Court the opportunity to address the issues raised. Plaintiff did this in 

serving Defendant with her notice of unavailability two days prior to her second noticed

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 11 of 16
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

12

deposition, although she had almost two weeks‟ notice of the deposition. Similarly, Plaintiff filed 

her motion to continue the June 17, 2015 hearing the day prior, although she received notice that 

she was required to personally appear in the May 26, 2015 order. Finally, Plaintiff continually 

files motions for reconsideration by the District Judge on the eve of hearings scheduled before the 

undersigned. The Court finds this conduct demonstrates Plaintiff‟s pattern of avoiding complying 

with the orders of this Court by filing documents intended to frustrate the resolution of this action 

on the merits. 

Defendant argues that it suffers prejudice in this action as Plaintiff‟s complete failure to 

comply with discovery has made it nearly impossible for Defendant to defend against her claims 

and allegations. Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff‟s deposition and a request for 

sanctions of $2,250.00 due to her failure to appear for the third noticed deposition in this action. 

Plaintiff was noticed to appear at a deposition on June 10, 2015 pursuant to the order directing her 

to appear for a deposition within fifteen days. Plaintiff again refused to appear for her deposition. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment which has been 

continued to allow Defendant to complete discovery in this action due to Plaintiff‟s refusal to 

comply with the discovery rules. Defendant has propounded discovery requests on Plaintiff and 

she has not served responses in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as 

discussed above. Further, Defendant has now noticed three depositions for which Plaintiff has 

refused to appear. Defendant continues to incur costs in bringing duplicative motions to compel 

Plaintiff to comply due to her refusal to participate in discovery. Plaintiff has indicated that she 

will not comply should the Court order her to pay cost as a sanction for her noncompliance. 

Defendant has suffered prejudice by Plaintiff‟s refusal to participate in discovery and this 

prejudice to Defendant weighs in favor of granting terminating sanctions in this action.

The public policy favoring disposition of the case on the merits does not outweigh the 

factors favoring a terminating sanction. It is Plaintiff‟s refusal to comply with discovery requests 

that is precluding a disposition of the action on its merits. 

Finally, the availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered and found to be 

ineffective in this action. The Court has ordered Plaintiff to appear for a deposition and has 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 12 of 16
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

13

imposed monetary sanctions for her failure to appear. Plaintiff has indicated that she will not pay 

monetary sanctions as she does not recognize this Court‟s authority to issue sanctions in this 

action. Since Plaintiff has indicated that she will not comply with any sanction issued in this 

action by either this Court or Judge Ishii, the Court finds that the imposition of lessor sanctions 

would be futile. Additionally, Plaintiff has been warned that her continued failure to comply with 

orders of the Court will result in dismissal of this action as a sanction.

On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff was ordered to appear for a deposition. (ECF No. 91 at 7.) In 

the May 4, 2015 order, Plaintiff was advised that further motions that are frivolous or not based 

on sound legal principles will result in the issuance of sanctions. (ECF No. 91 at 9.) Further, the 

parties were specifically advised that the court would enter sanctions up to and including 

terminating sanctions in appropriate circumstances and this can occur where a party refuses to 

comply with discovery requests. (Id. at 12.) Finally, Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply 

with the order would result in the issuance of sanctions up to and including dismissal of this 

action. (Id. at 13.) 

On May 26, 2015, this Court issued an order granting Defendant‟s motion to compel and 

awarding sanctions for Plaintiff‟s failure to appear at her second scheduled deposition. (ECF No. 

109.) The order noted that Plaintiff asserted numerous frivolous objections to the motion for 

sanctions. (Id. at 4.) The order stated that Plaintiff would be well advised to cooperate in 

discovery in this action to avoid further discovery sanctions based on Defendant‟s assertion that 

she included 29 documents in her motion for summary judgment that were not previously 

produced in discovery. (Id. at 6.) The Court noted that Plaintiff filed a notice of availability days 

prior to the previously noticed motion and advised Plaintiff that such antics would not be 

tolerated by the Court. (Id.) Plaintiff was ordered to appear for a deposition within fifteen days 

from the date of service of the May 26, 2015 order and was ordered to pay sanctions of 

$4,445.00. (Id. at 7-9.) Plaintiff was again advised that any further motions that lack a legal basis 

or any further failure to comply with Court orders would result in further sanctions, up to and 

including the recommendation of a terminating sanction. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff was ordered to 

personally appear for a hearing on June 17, 2015 and advised that her failure to comply with the 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 13 of 16
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

14

order would result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id. at 10.)

Plaintiff received notice that her failure to comply with orders of this Court would result 

in the recommendation that this action be dismissed as a sanction. The Court has imposed 

monetary sanctions for Plaintiff‟s failure to appear at the second deposition and this was not 

sufficient to cause Plaintiff to change her conduct. Plaintiff has indicated that she will not pay 

monetary sanctions ordered by the Court. Based on the history of this litigation, it is apparent to 

the Court that there are no lessor sanctions that would be sufficient to address Plaintiff‟s conduct 

in this instance. The Court finds that Plaintiff‟s conduct in refusing to comply with the discovery 

orders is willful and this is one of those extreme circumstances in which a terminating sanction is 

justified. Fair Housing of Marin, 285 F.3d at 905. Defendant‟s request for additional monetary 

sanctions should be denied as imposition of the dismissal sanction would make the award of 

further monetary sanctions unjust.

Accordingly, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed as a sanction for 

Plaintiff‟s failure to comply with discovery orders in this action. 

2. Plaintiff‟s Cross-Motion for Sanctions

As Plaintiff has in her opposition to all of Defendant‟s motions to compel, she brings a 

cross motion for sanctions against defense counsel in this action. Plaintiff seeks default 

judgment and disbarment of counsel as a sanction. As the Court has previously found, Plaintiff 

fails to demonstrate any conduct on behalf of Defendant that would justify the imposition of 

sanctions. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s cross-motion for the imposition of sanctions should be 

denied.

C. Motion for Stay of Action

Plaintiff seeks to have this action stayed while she pursues her petition for a writ of 

mandamus to prohibit the undersigned and the District Court from deciding any issues in the 

action and vacate all orders. 

Generally, an appeal to the Ninth Circuit divests the district court of jurisdiction over all 

aspects of the case that are the subject of the appeal. United States v. Pitner, 307 F.3d 1178, 

1183 n.5 (9th Cir. 2002). However, this rule does not apply to petitions for a writ of mandamus. 

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 14 of 16
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

15

Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1416 (5th Cir. 1995). A petition for mandamus 

requests an extraordinary remedy that is only appropriate in exceptional circumstances. Id. 

Since it is only in exceptional circumstances that these petitions are granted, “the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure do not provide for an automatic stay of district court proceedings while a 

petition for writ of mandamus is pending.” Id. The “district court does not lose jurisdiction over 

a case merely because a litigant files an interlocutory petition for an extraordinary writ.” Ellis v. 

U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Washington (Tacoma), 360 F.3d 1022, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Therefore, it is in the discretion of the district court whether to stay the case pending resolution 

of the petition for a writ of mandamus. Woodson, 57 F.3d 1416,

In this instance, Plaintiff‟s request for mandamus is based upon frivolous incorrect legal 

arguments. See Reddy v. USCD-CAFR, No. 15-71815 (9th Cir. June 15, 2015). Here, Plaintiff 

has sought recusal of the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. Plaintiff contends that based 

upon her motion this court is required to recuse himself. However, the Court has considered 

Plaintiff‟s request and found that recusal is not appropriate. Additionally, Judge Ishii has 

considered Plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration of the issue and found no grounds on which 

recusal or disqualification is required. Similarly, Plaintiff asserts that the District Judge may not 

issue decisions in her action because he is on senior status and is therefore not an Article III 

judge.

Finally, Plaintiff contends that this Court was deprived of jurisdiction when the forum 

defendant was dismissed from this action. However, Plaintiff brought this action under Title 

VII, and the venue provisions of section 2000e-5(f)(3) apply in this action. Johnson v. Payless 

Drug Stores Northwest, Inc., 950 F.2d 586, 587 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court 

recommends that Plaintiff‟s request for a stay of the proceedings be denied. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant‟s motion to compel and request for sanctions filed May 21, 2015, be 

GRANTED;

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 15 of 16
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

16

2. Defendant‟s motion to compel and request for sanctions filed June 11, 2015, be 

GRANTED; 

3. Plaintiff‟s cross-motion for sanctions against Defendant be DENIED; 

4. Plaintiff‟s motion for a stay pending resolution of her writ of mandamus be 

DENIED; and

5. This action be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, as a sanction for Plaintiff‟s 

failure to comply with Court orders requiring her to submit to discovery.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court‟s Local Rule 304. Within twenty 

(20) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge‟s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB Document 126 Filed 06/18/15 Page 16 of 16