Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02916/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02916-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

ZENITH FREEDMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHERIFF’S OFFICER TONG, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02916 CRB

ORDER

Plaintiff Zenith Freedman has submitted a request for appointment of counsel. Her

request is hereby DENIED.

Defendant has submitted a motion to dismiss the case due to Plaintiff’s repeated

failure to comply with her discovery obligations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, 41(b); see also

Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 640-41 (1976); Wanderer v.

Johnston, 910 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court recognizes that Plaintiff has routinely

failed to produce responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, and that she has repeatedly

violated orders by this Court and Magistrate Judge Zimmerman. Nonetheless, the Court

declines to exercise its discretion to dismiss the case. In light of Plaintiff’s limited personal

resources and the fact that, by their own admission, “Defendants are unable to point to

specific documents that have not been produced,” the ultimate sanction of dismissal is not

warranted here. The Ninth Circuit’s guidance on the proper application of Rule 37 counsels

Case 3:06-cv-02916-CRB Document 49 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2006\2916\order2.wpd 2

against dismissal in this case given the “public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits” and the fact that “less drastic sanctions” appear to have brought about a satisfactory

resolution of the discovery dispute. See Wanderer, 910 F.2d at 656 (quoting Malone v.

United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1987)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02916-CRB Document 49 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 2