Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01644/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01644-2/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

05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUZANNE STANTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

VENETEC INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S

ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS

[Doc. No. 38]

On September 6, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Enforce the

Court’s Order and for Sanctions. Doc. No. 38. In its motion and

accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, Defendant requests

that the case be dismissed in its entirety because Plaintiff has

repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s orders and with the

discovery rules. Id. Plaintiff did not file an oppposition and the

motion was taken under submission.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this case on August 18, 2005, alleging that

Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her age and

gender during the course of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant. Doc.

No. 1. At the time the complaint was filed, Plaintiff was represented

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 10
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 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

by counsel. However, on January 12, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew

as counsel of record at Plaintiff’s request. Doc. No. 9. Plaintiff has

not obtained new counsel.

Because Plaintiff has taken no action in this case since May of

this year, the facts detailed in this report substantially mirror those

set forth in this Court’s August 11, 2006 Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No .31]. 

A. Written Discovery Requests

On February 24, 2006, Defendant propounded interrogatories,

requests for production, and requests for admission upon Plaintiff via

certified mail. See Aff. of Marcie Freeman (“Freeman Aff.”), attached

to Doc. No. 24, at 2. These discovery requests were returned to

Defendant when Plaintiff did not pick up the certified mail. Id.

Defendant again mailed the discovery requests to Plaintiff via regular

mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. Id. The return

receipt reflects that Plaintiff received the discovery requests on March

6, 2006. Id. 

Plaintiff’s discovery responses were due on April 7, 2006. Id.

On that date, Plaintiff requested a two-week extension of the deadline.

Id. Defendant agreed to extend the deadline to April 19, 2006. Id.

However, Defendant did not receive any responses from Plaintiff on or

before that date. Id. On April 24, 2006, Defendant informed Plaintiff

via letter that the deadline had passed and requested that Plaintiff

immediately provide responses to Defendant’s written discovery requests.

Id.

On April 28, 2006, the Court convened a Mandatory Settlement

Conference, which Plaintiff attended. See Doc. No. 17. The case did

not settle. Id. After the settlement conference, the Court held a

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 10
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 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

discovery conference on the record. Id. Plaintiff admitted on the

record that she had received the written discovery requests and that she

had not responded to them. See Tr. of April 28, 2006 conference at 2-3

(foll. Doc. No. 22). Plaintiff offered no explanation for this failure.

Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to comply with all of the

discovery rules and do whatever was necessary to complete discovery by

the June 16, 2006 cutoff date. See Id. at 8. Despite the Court’s

express order, Plaintiff has still not provided Defendant with any

documents or written discovery responses. See Freeman Aff. at 2.

B. Plaintiff’s Deposition

On March 8, 2006, Defendant’s counsel telephoned Plaintiff seeking

a deposition date, but Plaintiff requested that the deposition be

postponed until Plaintiff was represented by counsel. Doc. No. 24 at

3. Defendant agreed to delay deposing Plaintiff for a short period and

subsequently noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for March 27, 2006. Id.

While Defendant’s counsel eventually cancelled the deposition due to a

death in her family, Plaintiff informed Defendant by letter dated March

25, 2006, that she would not appear for deposition on March 27, 2006

because she had not yet retained counsel. Id. at Ex. 4. 

On April 14, 2006, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff noticing

Plaintiff’s deposition for April 21, 2006. Id. at Ex. 5. The return

receipt indicates that Plaintiff received the letter on April 15, 2006.

Id. Plaintiff did not appear for the April 21, 2006 deposition. Id.

at Ex. 6. Plaintiff attempted to cancel the deposition at approximately

6:00 p.m. on the eve of the deposition, stating that she had contacted

an attorney who might represent her. Id. at 3. The next morning,

Defendant’s counsel left a telephone message for Plaintiff, stating that

the deposition would go forward as scheduled. Id. Fifteen minutes

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 10
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

 Defendant’s motion was captioned “Motion to Dismiss, and in the Alternative,

Motion for Plaintiff to be Found in Contempt, Motion to Compel, and Motion for

Reasonable Expenses for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Discovery Rules.” Doc. No.

23. 

4 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

before the start of the deposition, Plaintiff called Defendant’s counsel

and stated that she was too ill to attend the deposition. Id. at 4. 

During the April 28, 2006 discovery conference, held on the record,

the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for a deposition on May 19, 2006.

Tr. Of April 28, 2006 conference at 7 (foll. Doc. No. 22). On May 3,

2006, Defendant provided written notice to Plaintiff of the May 19, 2006

deposition. Doc. No. 24 at Ex. 10. On May 18, 2006, Defendant’s

counsel sent Plaintiff a letter via facsimile and email reminding

Plaintiff of the May 19, 2006 deposition. Id. at Ex. 11. Plaintiff

responded to the email on May 18, 2006, stating that she would not

attend the deposition “due to not being well.” Id. at Ex. 12.

Plaintiff did not appear at the May 19, 2006 deposition. Id. at Ex. 13.

C. Defendant’s Motion to Compel

On June 1, 2006, Defendant filed a motion to compel.1 Doc. No. 23.

In that motion, Defendant requested that the Court compel Plaintiff to

comply with the discovery rules and impose sanctions against Plaintiff

for her repeated failures to comply. Doc. Nos. 23, 24. Specifically,

Defendant requested the following sanctions: dismissal, contempt of

court, evidentiary restrictions, and/or monetary penalties. Id.

Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to compel.

On August 11, 2006, this Court granted in part and denied in part

Defendant’s motion to compel, ordering Plaintiff to: (1) provide written

responses to Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production

within fourteen days; (2) produce all documents responsive to

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 4 of 10
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

5 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

Defendant’s requests for production within fourteen days; (3) appear for

a deposition on August 30, 2006; and (4) pay $1,005.50 in sanctions to

Defendant’s counsel within fourteen days. Doc. No. 31. The Court

declined to impose dismissal, contempt of court, or evidentiary

restrictions as sanctions at that time largely because the Court found

that Plaintiff had not received adequate warning that such severe

sanctions could result from Plaintiff’s failure to comply. Id.

However, the August 11, 2006 order warned Plaintiff at least five times,

in no uncertain terms, that “future violations of the discovery rules

or of the Court's orders will result in the imposition of more severe

sanctions, including, but not limited to, monetary sanctions,

evidentiary sanctions, contempt of court, or dismissal of the case in

its entirety.” Id.

In the instant motion, Defendant documents Plaintiff’s failure to

comply, in any manner, with this Court’s August 11, 2006 order. Decl.

of Marcie Freeman (“Freeman Decl.”), attached to Def.’s Mem. P. & A. as

Ex. 3, at 2. In a sworn declaration, Defendant’s counsel states that

Plaintiff did not provide any written responses or documents, did not

appear for her deposition on August 30, 2006, and did not pay the

ordered monetary sanction. Id. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Dismissal is an appropriate sanction only where a non-complying

party’s behavior demonstrates “willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Hyde

& Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 1994). Before dismissing

a case for failure to comply with a court order, a court must consider

the following factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3)

the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 5 of 10
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

 Defendant additionally requests dismissal on the basis of Plaintiff’s failure

to prosecute this case. Def.'s Mem. P. & A. at 5-7. Civil Rule 41.1 of the Local

Rules of the Southern District of California states that "[a]ctions or proceedings

which have been pending in this court for more than six months, without any proceeding

or discovery having been taken therein during such period, may, after notice, be

dismissed by the court for want of prosecution... ." In the instant case, Plaintiff

appeared at a Mandatory Settlement Conference on April 28, 2006. Because less than six

months have passed since that proceeding, this Court finds that it would be

inappropriate to dismiss the case on failure-to-prosecute grounds at this time.

6 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

availability of less drastic sanctions. Id. (citing Wanderer v.

Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Stars’ Desert Inn

Hotel & Country Club, Inc. v. Hwang, 105 F.3d 521, 524 (9th Cir. 1997).

“The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in

most cases, while the fourth cuts against a default or dismissal

sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser

sanctions.” Hwang, 105 F.3d at 524.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff

has deliberately failed to comply with the discovery rules and with the

Court’s orders.2 Def.’s Mem. P. & A. at 2. This Court agrees.

Plaintiff’s actions to date have prevented Defendant from obtaining

any discovery from Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply

with discovery have clearly “impaired [Defendant’s] ability to go to

trial [and have] threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of

the case” and, therefore, have resulted in prejudice to Defendant. See

Baker, 24 F.3d at 1166 (quoting United States ex rel. Wiltec Guam, Inc.

v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., 857 F.2d 600, 604 (9th Cir. 1988)). Defendant

provides the following specific examples of prejudice it has suffered

as a result of Plaintiff’s failures to comply:

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 6 of 10
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

7 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

(a) Without the benefit of Plaintiff’s deposition and written

discovery responses, Venetec’s expert has been unable to

adequately prepare her expert report.

(b) Ms. Stanton’s actions have impeded Venetec’s preparation

for trial.

(c) Venetec has incurred attorney’s fees and expenses each

time Ms. Stanton has been noticed for her deposition, but has

failed to appear.

(d) Ms. Stanton’s actions have not allowed Venetec to

properly prepare its dispositive motions.

Def.’s Mem. P. & A. at 4.

In addition, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s pattern of avoiding

discovery establishes willfulness. Plaintiff has knowingly and

intentionally failed to appear at three properly-noticed depositions,

two of which were ordered by this Court. Moreover, with regard to the

most recent deposition, which this Court ordered to occur on August 30,

2006 [see doc. no. 31], Plaintiff never contacted Defendant or the

Court; she just did not appear. Plaintiff also has failed to provide

written and documentary discovery and has ignored this Court’s order to

do so. As set forth in the Court’s August 11, 2006 order, Plaintiff had

not responded to Defendant’s written discovery. The Court noted this

failure and gave Plaintiff an additional opportunity to rectify this

error. Plaintiff refused to do so by failing to respond by the deadline

imposed by the Court in its August 11th order. Doc. No. 31. In

addition, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s initial motion to

compel and to the instant motion for dismissal, despite the Court’s

repeated warning that failure to comply with the Court’s order could

result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s entire case. Plaintiff’s conduct

establishes not only an intentional avoidance of her discovery

obligations and willful violation of this Court’s orders, it evidences

her intent to abandon her case altogether.

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

This Court has considered the feasibility of less drastic sanctions

and finds that imposition of less drastic sanctions at this time would

be futile in achieving Plaintiff’s compliance with court orders and with

the discovery rules. See Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1058

(9th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court’s dismissal sanction upon

finding that imposition of less drastic sanctions would have been

futile). Both Defendant and the Court have already provided Plaintiff

with numerous opportunities to cure her non-compliance. Defendant has

postponed Plaintiff’s deposition at Plaintiff’s request and allowed

Plaintiff significant additional time to respond to Defendant’s

discovery requests. When Plaintiff still failed to appear for

deposition or provide documents or written discovery responses and

Defendant sought dismissal, the Court provided Plaintiff with yet

another opportunity to fulfill her discovery obligations. Specifically,

at the April 28, 2006 discovery conference, the Court ordered Plaintiff

to appear for deposition on May 19, 2006 and to comply with the

discovery rules. Plaintiff failed to comply with these orders. In a

written order dated August 11, 2006, the Court provided Plaintiff with

one last opportunity, ordering Plaintiff to appear for deposition on

August 30, 2006, to provide documents and written responses to

Defendant’s discovery requests, and to pay monetary sanctions to

Defendant. Additionally, the Court explicitly and repeatedly warned

Plaintiff that any violation of the Court’s August 11, 2006 order likely

would result in the imposition of severe sanctions, including dismissal

of the case. Notwithstanding these warnings, Plaintiff again failed to

comply with any of the Court’s orders. 

The Court’s repeated warnings of the possibility of dismissal,

together with its actual implementation of less drastic (monetary)

sanctions, are sufficient to satisfy the Court’s obligation to consider

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 8 of 10
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 Notably, the Court also notified Plaintiff in its August 11, 2006 order

that her failure to respond to Defendant’s requests for admission appeared to have

resulted in those admissions being deemed admitted pursuant to operation of Rule 36(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

9 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

less drastic sanctions before imposing dismissal3. See Estrada, 244

F.3d at 1057 (“[A] judge's warning to a party that a future failure to

obey a court order will result in default judgment can itself suffice

to meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement. Furthermore,

‘explicit discussion of alternatives is unnecessary if the district

court actually tries alternatives before employing the ultimate sanction

of dismissal.’”) (citations omitted).

In sum, this Court finds that Defendant has suffered severe

prejudice as a result of Plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with

the Court’s orders and with the discovery rules. The Court also finds

that its earlier order imposing less drastic sanctions has failed to

cure Plaintiff’s non-compliance and thus, that imposition of additional

less drastic sanctions at this time would be futile. Furthermore, the

Court finds that Plaintiff has received adequate warning that her case

would be dismissed if she failed to comply with the Court’s orders. For

all of these reasons, this Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion for

sanctions be granted and that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the

District Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report

and Recommendation, and (2) dismissing the case in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report

must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than

October 9, 2006. The document should be captioned "Objections to Report

and Recommendation."

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10 05cv1644-LAB (BLM)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than October 23,

2006. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within

the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on

appeal of the Court's order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455

(9th Cir. 1998).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 25, 2006

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE LARRY A. BURNS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01644-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 09/25/06 Page 10 of 10