Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04217/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04217-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN JOHNSON,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-4217 MMC (BZ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A PRECLUSIONARY

SANCTION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions

came on for hearing on August 31, 2007. In part, plaintiff

complained that defendant the San Francisco Giants refused to

designate a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify as to the

affirmative defenses included in its answer to the amended

complaint. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(B) states that

if a party fails to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6),

the discovering party may move for an order compelling a

designation. A preclusionary order such as plaintiff seeks is

available only when a party fails to comply with a court order

to provide or permit discovery, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B),

Case 3:06-cv-04217-MMC Document 150 Filed 09/04/07 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

27

28

2

or when a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) fails to

appear. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d); see also Federal Civil

Procedure Before Trial §§ 11:159, 11:192, 11:193 (The Rutter

Group, 2007). Per subdivision (d), “a party may not properly

remain completely silent even when he regards a notice to take

his deposition ... as improper and objectionable. If he

desires not to appear or not to respond, he must apply for a

protective order.” Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 37(d),

1970 Amendment. 

Preclusionary sanctions are not warranted. Plaintiff

noticed the deposition at issue on June 26, 2007 to take place

on June 29, 2007. See Leigh Supp. Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A (Docket

No. 143). By letter dated June 27, 2007, the Giants

registered their objections to noticing their affirmative

defenses as deposition topics. See id. at ¶ 4, Exh. B. The

letter went on to state that the Giants did not consider there

to be enough time to meet and confer and pursue a protective

order prior to the June 29 date, and suggested a meet and

confer session for the following day. 

Although the Giants did not file a motion for protective

order, they did not remain “completely silent” in the face of

the notice. Thus, the propriety of granting sanctions under

Rule 37(d) is questionable. In any event, considering the

harshness of the preclusionary sanction requested, I do not

consider it commensurate with the Giants’ alleged misdeeds. 

See, e.g., Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 947-48 (9th

Cir. 2001) (determining that the court could not say that

sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) was not commensurate with the

Case 3:06-cv-04217-MMC Document 150 Filed 09/04/07 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

27

28

3

party’s misconduct). 

On these facts, I would likely have ordered the Giants to

designate a 30(b)(6) witness on at least some of the topics

noticed and perhaps awarded plaintiff some attorney’s fees. 

Plaintiff, however, stated clearly he did not seek a

deposition; he sought only a preclusionary order. For the

reasons discussed, plaintiff’s request for a sanction

precluding the Giants from presenting factual evidence

supportive of its affirmative defenses is DENIED. 

Dated: September 4, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\Johnson v. SF\Order re Preclusionary Santions.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-04217-MMC Document 150 Filed 09/04/07 Page 3 of 3