Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00487/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00487-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

VICTORIA STEVENSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TARGET CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00487-OWW-SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(Doc. 15)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RE: DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT/

ACTION

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY THE COMPLAINT/ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

LACK OF PROSECUTION:

Date: 5/21/07

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Ctrm: 3 ~ 7 Floor th

Judge: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger

Defendant Target Corporation’s Motion to Compel Production

of Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request

for Documents and Request for Sanctions (Doc. 15) was filed and

served on March 13, 2007. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the

motion. The Motion to Compel was originally set for hearing on

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 05/03/07 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

April 13, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 before Chief

Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder. However, on April 11, 2007,

via Minute Order (Doc. 19), the hearing was vacated and the

motion was taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule

78-230(c) and (h).

The Court has fully considered the briefing submitted by

Defendant, and in light of Plaintiff’s non-opposition to

Defendant’s Motion to Compel, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff

shall respond to Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for

production without withholding any information or documents on

the basis of privilege or any other objections on or before

May 15, 2007; and,

2. Plaintiff and her attorney are SANCTIONED in the amount

of $4,080.00, for Defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and

costs incurred with compelling production of Plaintiff’s

discovery responses and Plaintiff’s initial disclosures, to be

paid directly to counsel for Defendant on or before June 1, 2007.

The Court further FINDS and hereby RECOMMENDS that since

Plaintiff declined to submit an opposition to Defendant’s Motion

to Compel, and has not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s discovery

violations were outside of her control, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff’s discovery violations appear willful. Given

Plaintiff’s apparent abandonment of her claims, a sanction less

than dismissal would be ineffective.

//

/

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 05/03/07 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

It appears Plaintiff has acted willfully and in bad faith by

failing to comply with the rules of discovery. Plaintiff has

completely refused to respond to written discovery, has refused

to respond to inquiries by Defendant regarding discovery, and

failed to oppose Defendant’s Motion to Compel. In addition,

Plaintiff refused to provide Defendant with her initial

disclosures until ordered to do so by the Court, nearly three (3)

months after the disclosures were due, without any reason or

excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to provide the initial disclosures

in a timely manner.

Plaintiff has not otherwise diligently prosecuted this case,

and the Court possesses the discretionary authority to dismiss an

action based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute diligently. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Fed. Civ.

Proc. Before Trial ¶ 16:431 (1997). Unreasonable delay by

Plaintiff is sufficient to justify dismissal, even in the absence

of actual prejudice to the defendant, Moore v. Telfon

Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967-68 (9th Cir. 1978), since

a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

unreasonable delay. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche

Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff

then has the burden of showing justification for the delay and,

in the absence of such showing, the case is properly dismissed

for failure to prosecute. Nealey v. Transportation Maritima

Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1980).

///

//

/

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 05/03/07 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

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, SHOW CAUSE why

this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute;

2. This matter is SET for hearing on May 21, 2007 at 10:00

a.m. in Courtroom No. 3 before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

Senior United States District Judge, for consideration of

dismissal for lack of prosecution; and,

3. If Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, has any

reasons why this action should not be dismissed, they shall be

submitted by sworn declaration of facts on or before May 14, 2007

by 5:00 p.m. to which Plaintiff may append a supporting

memorandum of law to include an explanation for:

A. Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to comply with the

rules of discovery.

B. Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to respond to

Defendant’s written discovery.

C. Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to respond to

Defendant’s inquiries regarding discovery.

D. Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to oppose Defendant’s

motion to compel.

E. Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to provide Defendant

with initial disclosures in a timely manner, until ordered to do

so by the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 05/03/07 Page 4 of 4