Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH (KAW)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 72

Plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell filed these cases against Defendants Rudolph and Sletten, 

Inc. and Service West, Inc., alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and national origin. 

(See Dkt. No. 1.)1 On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for sanctions, based on 

Defendants' alleged "continueing [sic] engaging in frivolity." (Plf.'s Mot. for Sanctions, Dkt. No. 

72.) On March 28, 2019, Defendants filed their opposition. (Defs.' Opp'n, Dkt. No. 77.) As of 

the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed a reply.

Plaintiff provides no basis for sanctions. First, Plaintiff complains that she has been 

"extremely cooperative as can be with [D]efendants." (Plf.'s Mot. for Sanctions at 2.) To the 

contrary, Plaintiff has repeatedly refused to comply with her discovery obligations, necessitating 

multiple orders by this Court reminding Plaintiff of the need to cooperate in discovery or risk 

terminating sanctions. (See Dkt. Nos. 58 (Dec. 17, 2019 Discovery Order) at 4, 60 (Dec. 19, 2019 

Discovery Order) at 2, 71 (March 6, 2019 Discovery Order) at 4.) Moreover, while Plaintiff 

asserts that Defendants should not be requesting further documents because she already informed 

them that the remaining documents were lost when her car was towed, the Court notes that

 

1 The cases were originally filed separately; on January 9, 2019, the cases were consolidated. 

(Dkt. No. 64.)

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 80 Filed 04/09/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff did not inform Defendants of such until February 22, 2019, after Defendants had already 

filed their February 20, 2019 letter regarding Plaintiff's failure to provide responsive documents. 

(See Plf.'s Mot. for Sanctions at 2, 3; Dkt. No. 67 (Defs.' Feb. 20, 2019 Discovery Letter).)

Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have made "threats and underhand tactics." 

(Plf.'s Mot. for Sanctions at 2.) Plaintiff provides no facts or evidence in support. To the extent 

Plaintiff is complaining of Defendants filing multiple discovery letters, those letters had merit.

Third, Plaintiff points to Defendants' refusal to produce her deposition transcript to her. 

(Plf.'s Mot. for Sanctions at 3.) The Court already denied Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants

to produce her deposition transcript, and the presiding judge denied Plaintiff's appeal of that order. 

(See Dkt. No. 70 (March 5, 2019 Order Denying Motion to Compel); Dkt. No. 76 (March 27, 2019 

Order Denying Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order) at 1-2.)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 80 Filed 04/09/19 Page 2 of 2