Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT HEATH, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF 

ORDER DISMISSING NONRESPONSIVE OPT-IN PLAINTIFFS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Re: ECF 324]

On August 6, 2018, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Non-Responsive 

Plaintiffs Should Not Be Dismissed, ordering eight Opt-In Plaintiffs1(“the Non-Responsive 

Plaintiffs”) to file a written response explaining why they should not be dismissed from this action 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for failing to respond to written discovery as 

ordered by the Court. See ECF 324. The deadline to respond was August 31, 2018, but the NonResponsive Plaintiffs did not file a response. For the reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs.

I. BACKGROUND

After the Court conditionally certified a class of individuals in this case, two-hundred and 

seventy-two individuals opted in to the collective action lawsuit as party plaintiffs, including the 

eight Non-Responsive Plaintiffs. In July 2017, Plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes and the Opt-In Plaintiffs 

and Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) disputed the content and scope of written discovery in this 

action. On July 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd settled the dispute by ordering 75 

randomly selected Opt-In Plaintiffs to respond to eight requests for production and four 

 

1 The non-responsive Opt-In Plaintiffs are 

, and .

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 342 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

interrogatories and ordering Google to select 35 Opt-In Plaintiffs to depose. See ECF 185. Six 

Non-Responsive Plaintiffs were served via counsel with these requests on September 7, 2017, and 

two Non-Responsive Plaintiffs were served via counsel on March 2, 2018. See McInerney Decl. ¶ 

2, ECF 314-1. Each of the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs failed to respond. Id.

On July 31, 2018, Google moved this Court to issue an order to show cause why the NonResponsive Plaintiffs should not be dismissed. See ECF 314. Plaintiffs opposed. See ECF 320. 

On August 6, 2018, this Court granted Google’s administrative motion and issued an order to 

show cause to the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs, requiring a response by August 31, 2018 and 

warning that failure to respond would cause dismissal of the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs. See ECF 

323, 324. The Non-Responsive Plaintiffs did not respond by the deadline. 

On August 1, 2018, Plaintiffs’ counsel moved to withdraw as attorneys of record for six of 

the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs, indicating they had been unable to reach the six Non-Responsive 

Plaintiffs and had thus notified the six on January 25, 2018 that they would be moving to 

withdraw as counsel. See Mot. to Withdraw at 3, ECF 316. On August 8, 2018, Plaintiffs’ 

counsel moved to withdraw as attorneys of record for the other two Non-Responsive Plaintiffs, 

having provided them notice on July 25, 2018. See Mot. to Withdraw at 3, ECF 328.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides specific sanctions a Court is permitted to 

impose if a party fails to comply with a court order. Where a party disobeys a discovery order, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(2)(A) allows the Court where the action is pending to “dismiss[] the action or 

proceeding in whole or in part,” among other potential sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(2)(A)(v). 

To determine whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, the court must 

weigh five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s 

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Thompson v. Housing 

Authority, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 342 Filed 09/05/18 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. DISCUSSION

Having considered the five Malone factors, the Court holds that dismissal of the NonResponsive Plaintiffs without prejudice is warranted here. The first two factors—the public’s 

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket—both 

favor dismissal here. Because the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs have failed to respond both to orders 

from the Court and to requests from their own counsel, this Court and the parties have had to

spend unnecessary time litigating the issues, and the Plaintiffs’ non-responsiveness has increased 

Google’s discovery burden. See Alvarez v. Farmers Ins. Exch., No. 14-CV-00574-WHO, 2015 

WL 5769614, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015). Moreover, Google was and continues to be 

prejudiced by this non-responsiveness because it was deprived of discovery useful to any 

decertification or summary judgment motion it might file. See ECF 314 at 4. Finally, the Court 

cannot contrive a less drastic sanction, as the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs have failed to respond to 

both discovery requests and their counsels’ communications for the last 6–8 months. They 

provide no evidence as to why this non-responsiveness is warranted or indicating that they might 

suddenly begin to comply with the Court’s orders. Indeed, they failed to respond to the Court’s 

order to show cause. And though the public policy favoring disposition on the merits weighs 

against dismissal, the Court dismisses the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs without prejudice to their 

ability to demonstrate good cause for their failures to comply with Court orders thus far.

Accordingly, the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs are DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

from this action. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall serve this Order on the Non-Responsive Plaintiffs and 

shall file a certificate of service on or before September 11, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 342 Filed 09/05/18 Page 3 of 3