Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01512/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01512-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANELLE KIDD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1512-L (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL AND FOR

SANCTIONS

[DOC. NO. 19]

vs.

AT&T CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

On April 18, 2012, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s

Responses to Discovery and Request for Sanctions. (Doc. No. 19). Plaintiff

responded on April 26, 2012. (Doc. No. 23). Defendants assert that on January 24,

2012, they propounded requests for production and special interrogatories upon

Plaintiff. Responses were due on or before February 27, 2012. Several meet and

confer sessions followed in which the deadline for responses was finally extended to

March 30, 2012. Without a response, Defendants solicited Plaintiff to participate in a

joint motion to determine a discovery dispute as required by this Court’s chambers

rules. A proposed joint motion was submitted to Plaintiff on April 10, 2012. No

participation was forthcoming requiring Defendants, as provided by chambers rules,

to bring this motion to compel ex parte on April 18, 2012.

Plaintiff’s response claims that she has been ill since January 2012. Plaintiff

- 1 - 11cv1512-L (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01512-L-MDD Document 24 Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 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

does not dispute the factual allegations contained in Defendants’ motion. She claims

to be suffering with Lyme Disease, allegedly contracted in 2006, and is having

complications. Plaintiff’s response is not supported by a declaration nor with any

supporting documents from a treating physician. Plaintiff claims that her responses

will be served no later than May 1, 2012.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with discovery requests

within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv). Accordingly, Defendants’

motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to the pending

discovery requests no later than May 1, 2012.

Having granted the motion, the Court is required to have a party whose

conduct necessitated the motion pay the movant’s reasonable expenses in making the

motion, including attorney’s fees. Rule 37(a)(5)(A). The Court is not to order the

payment if the motion was filed without attempts to obtain the discovery without

court intervention; if the nondisclosure was substantially justified; or, if other

circumstances make an award unjust. Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii). 

The Court finds that payment by Plaintiff to Defendants of reasonable fees in

making the instant motion, including attorney’s fees, is warranted. Defendants’

declaration documents a number of attempts to avoid court intervention. Plaintiff

has not presented any evidence to show substantial justification. And the record does

not reflect any other circumstances to make such an award unjust. Defendants are to

submit their statement of expenses, by declaration, no later than seven (7) days from

the date of this Order. The Court will review the submission and issue an Order as

appropriate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

 

- 2 - 11cv1512-L (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01512-L-MDD Document 24 Filed 04/27/12 Page 2 of 2