Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00613/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00613-3/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SELENE STEWART,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WINSOR HOUSE CONVALESENT

HOSPITAL,

Defendant. /

No. C-08-00613 EDL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL; DENYING SANCTIONS;

DENYING APPLICATION FOR

ASSISTED MEDIATION; DENYING

“MOTION FOR PROTECTION”

Defendant Nadhan, Inc., erroneously sued as Winsor House, moves for an order compelling

Plaintiff to respond to written discovery and to submit to deposition and to pay sanctions to

Defendant. The Court previously ordered the parties to complete expedited discovery on the limited

issues of employment status and statute of limitations in order for Defendant to file a motion for

summary judgment. Defendant’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED and its request for sanctions is

DENIED. 

On May 14, 2008, Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery requests (for documents

and interrogatories) and set her deposition for June 20, 2008. Defendant reminded Plaintiff in

person on May 20, 2008 about her duty to respond to the discovery requests and attend the

deposition. When Plaintiff appeared confused about the deposition date, Defendant’s counsel served

on her an amended deposition notice, with the date and time set for June 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm (the

same date and time set forth in the original notice). 

Case 3:08-cv-00613-EDL Document 37 Filed 08/05/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Discovery responses were due on June 16, 2008. Plaintiff failed to provide any written

response or explanation , and called two hours before her deposition was set to commence to tell

Defendant that she would not be attending the deposition. After Plaintiff cancelled her deposition,

defense counsel tried to meet and confer with her about her overdue discovery responses. 

Ultimately, Defendant filed this motion after Plaintiff failed to comply with her discovery

obligations. 

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to attend her deposition, and she must do so no later than

August 19, 2008 or at a date mutually agreed to by the parties. As for the interrogatories and

document requests, Plaintiff must respond to these no later than August 19, 2008, as these requests

are relevant to the limited discovery issues discussed at the case management conference. While

Plaintiff filed what appear to be some responses to the interrogatories and document requests with

the Court, Plaintiff must serve any and all responses to Defendant’s discovery requests upon

Defendant. It also appears that the discovery responses filed by Plaintiff are incomplete. While the

Court is not granting sanctions, Plaintiff is warned that she may not simply ignore Defendant’s

discovery requests. Should she fail to respond to Defendant’s deposition notices and discovery

requests in the future, the Court may sanction her, up to and possibly including dismissal of her case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for assisted mediation is DENIED. 

The Court is of the opinion that it will be most productive for Plaintiff to participate in a settlement

conference before a magistrate judge, and the Court has referred this case to a different magistrate

judge for a settlement conference. However, the Court is not appointing counsel for Plaintiff for that

settlement conference.

Finally, Plaintiff filed a document titled “amended complaint” and “motion for protection”

on June 20, 2008. This filing is not a proper motion, as it only briefly notes that it is “also a motion

to protect me from immaterial and irrelevant inquiries when they are not pertinate [sic].” Plaintiff

does not describe any efforts she made to meet and confer with opposing counsel nor lists any

specific discovery requests for which she seeks protection. To the extent that Plaintiff characterizes

this filing as a motion, it is DENIED. Plaintiff is again directed to the pro se handbook, which is

available on the Court’s website at www.cand.uscourts.gov for direction and assistance in litigating

Case 3:08-cv-00613-EDL Document 37 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

her case. In addition, Plaintiff’s filing is not a proper amended complaint, because she must seek

leave to amend her complaint at this stage in the litigation pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 15.

Dated: August 5, 2008

______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00613-EDL Document 37 Filed 08/05/08 Page 3 of 3