Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06142/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06142-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

The facts are set forth more fully in the Court’s Order dated July 5, 2007.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

PATRICIA HUIZACHE,

Intervener,

v.

SIZZLER USA RESTAURANTS, INC.

Defendant. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-06-6142 J F PVT

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT AND

WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ORDER OF CIVIL

CONTEMPT

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this action on behalf of

Patricia Huizache alleging that Defendant subjected Ms. Huizache to a hostile environment based on

her sex and national origin. On March 9, 2007 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to

discovery.1

 On April 10, 2007, after Defendant failed to file an opposition, this Court granted

Plaintiff’s motion and ordered that discovery be produced no later than April 20, 2007. Defendant

did not comply. Plaintiff filed a motion for contempt on May 22, 2007. Defendant filed no

opposition to this motion. 

Case 5:06-cv-06142-JF Document 26 Filed 11/07/07 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

ORDER, page 2

On June 26, 2007, the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for a

hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Civil Contempt. Defense counsel, Glen Mertens,

appeared at the hearing and stated that he deliberately did not file an opposition to the motion for

contempt because he was in violation of the court order. 

During the June 26, 2007 hearing, this court ordered a recess during which counsel for both

parties were to confer to try to resolve this discovery dispute. Counsel agreed that Defendant will

verify that all responsive documents have been produced and will provide the person or persons

most knowledgeable about the responsive documents for a deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). 

On July 5, 2007, the Court issued an order finding that Defendant’s failure to oppose

contempt was not acceptable and being in violation of a court order is not a valid reason to fail to

oppose a motion for contempt. The Order required Defendant to file a verification of discovery

responses, including a statement by Mr. Mertens, under penalty of perjury, describing: 1) all efforts

made to locate responsive documents and 2) the circumstances under which any responsive

documents were lost, destroyed, or otherwise made unavailable for production. At that time, the

court kept the motion for contempt under submission and invited the Plaintiff to renew the motion if

Defendant fails to provide the promised additional discovery.

On September 4, 2007, Defendant timely filed the requested verification. Plaintiff has not

contacted the Court to indicate any deficiency with the discovery or the verification provided.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Civil Contempt is Denied as Moot and without

Prejudice; and

2. If Plaintiff encounters further problems with discovery, Plaintiff is invited to

renew the Motion for civil contempt.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2007

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06142-JF Document 26 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 2