Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00487/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00487-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victoria Stevenson
Plaintiff
Target Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA STEVENSON, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

TARGET CORPORATION, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-487 OWW/SMS

ORDER DISMISSING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE

TO PROSECUTE 

On March 20, 2006, Plaintiff Victoria Stevenson, represented

by Juan Falcon, filed a Complaint in the Fresno County Superior

Court. Defendants are Target Corporation and Does 1-50. The

Complaint alleges causes of action for wrongful termination in

violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional

distress, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional

distress. The action was removed to this Court on April 24, 2006

on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 

On March 13, 2007, Defendant filed a motion to compel,

seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 7
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

2

Special Interrogatories and Requests for Documents and to dismiss

the action and/or award Defendant monetary sanctions in the

amount of $4,080.00 against Plaintiff and Mr. Falcon. The motion

to compel was noticed for hearing on April 13, 2007 before

Magistrate Judge Snyder. On April 10, 2007, Defendant filed a

notice of no opposition filed by Plaintiff to the motion to

compel. By Order filed on April 11, 2007, Magistrate Judge

Snyder vacated the April 13, 2007 hearing and took the motion to

compel under submission. 

By Order filed on May 3, 2007, Magistrate Judge Snyder

granted the motion to compel and ordered Plaintiff to respond to

the discovery "without withholding any information or documents

on the basis of privilege or any other objections" by May 15,

2007. The May 3, 2007 Order further held:

2. Plaintiff and her attorney are SANCTIONED

in the amount of $4,080.00, for Defendant's

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred

with compelling production of Plaintiff's

discovery responses and Plaintiff's initial

disclosures, to be paid directly to counsel

for Defendant on or before June 1, 2007.

The Court further FINDS and hereby RECOMMENDS

that since Plaintiff declined to submit an

opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel,

and has not demonstrated that Plaintiff's

discovery violations were outside of her

control, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's

discovery violations appear willful. Given

Plaintiff's apparent abandonment of her

claims, a sanction less than dismissal would

be ineffective.

It appears Plaintiff has acted willfully and

in bad faith by failing to comply with the

rules of discovery. Plaintiff has completely

refused to respond to written discovery, has

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 7
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

3

refused to respond to inquiries by Defendant

regarding discovery, and failed to oppose

Defendant’s Motion to Compel. In addition,

Plaintiff refused to provide Defendant with

her initial disclosures until ordered to do

so by the Court, nearly three (3) months

after the disclosures were due, without any

reason or excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to

provide the initial disclosures in a timely

manner.

Magistrate Judge Snyder ordered Plaintiff to appear on May 21,

2007 and show cause why this action should not be dismissed for

failure to prosecute. Magistrate Judge Snyder further ordered:

3. If Plaintiff, by and through her counsel,

has any reason why this action should not be

dismissed, they shall be submitted by sworn

declaration of facts on or before May 14,

2007 by 5:00 p.m. to which Plaintiff may

append a supporting memorandum of law to

include an explanation for:

A. Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure 

to comply with the rules of discovery.

B. Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal 

to respond to Defendant’s written discovery.

C. Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal

to respond to Defendant’s inquiries regarding

discovery.

D. Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure 

to oppose Defendant’s motion to compel.

E. Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal

to provide Defendant with initial disclosures

in a timely manner, until ordered to do so by

the court.

On May 14, 2007, Juan Falcon timely filed his Declaration in

response to the Order to Show Cause. Mr. Falcon avers:

2. The initial Rule 26 disclosures in this

case were served on December 6, 2006. The

disclosures were not served in a timely

manner because of an oversight of Plaintiff’s

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 05/30/07 Page 3 of 7
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

4

counsel. Plaintiff bears no responsibility

for the belated Rule 26 disclosures. There

was no intentional refusal to comply with

discovery rules procedures.

3. Defendants’ Request for Production of

Documents Set Number One propounded by

Defendants were verified, served and

responded to by Plaintiff ... on May 14,

2007.

4. Defendants’ Request for Production of

Documents Set Number One propounded by

Defendants were verified, served and

responded to by Plaintiff ... on May 14, 2007 

[sic].

5. Plaintiff submits that the terminating

sanctions recommended by the Magistrate Judge

are excessive.

6. Plaintiff ... bears no personal

responsibility for the belated responses to

discovery.

7. To my recollection there have been no

prior warnings from the Court that a

dismissal was imminent Olivia v. Sullivan

(9 Cir.1992) 985 F.2d 272, 273. I th

apologize for the delay in responding to

discovery, and I can represent that no

further delays will be the fault of

Plaintiff.

8. No opposition to the Motion to Compel was

served prior to the hearing of April 13,

2007, because I was attempting to get

authorization for settlement of the case from

Plaintiff to take to Defendant before the

actual hearing on the motion. I was unable

to get a settlement authority from Plaintiff

that I though was reasonable and likely to be

accepted by Defendant. I believe this case

may still settle without the need for a

trial.

9. At no time was there a willfulness to

disobey the discovery order. There was no

intentional violation of any discovery order

by Plaintiff’s counsel. However, because of

the press of Plaintiff’s counsel’s criminal

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 05/30/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

practice, the discovery responses were

belated. There was no intentional disregard

for the discovery process.

10. There was no intentional or unreasonable

delay in the prosecution of this case that

warrants dismissal.

11. The ultimate sanction of dismissal is

not appropriate in this matter given that

compliance there has been compliance [sic]

with the May 3, 2007, discovery order in that

all outstanding discovery has been verified

and served on Defendant.

12. Although there has been no discovery

commenced by Plaintiff as of yet discovery

does not cut-off until June 18, 2007. 

Plaintiff has drafted written discovery and

will serve via overnight mail on May 15,

2007, written discovery in this case. 

Plaintiff intends to notice two depositions

before June 18, 2007. 

13. Plaintiff submits that defendants have

not been prejudiced, to the point where

dismissal is warranted. Plaintiff is

amenable to any continuance to address the

issue of the belated discovery.

14. Plaintiff requests one opportunity from

the Court to litigate this case on the merits

without any further delays. The interests of

justice would not be served by a dismissal of

this action.

Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for

dismissal of any action “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to

prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court

....” “[I]n order to dismiss a case as a sanction, the district

court must consider five 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 defendants;

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 05/30/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’

....” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th

Cir.1999). Dismissal as a sanction should be imposed only in

extreme circumstances. Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th

Cir.1992); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d

829, 831 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986).

None of these factors weigh in favor of dismissal of the

action. The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation is not impacted because discovery has not yet cut off. 

The court’s need to manage its docket is not affected because the

failure to timely comply with discovery requests and procedures

has not resulted in any continuances of dates set forth in the

Scheduling Order. Defendants have not been prejudiced by the

belated compliance with discovery requests for the same reason. 

The public policy in favor of resolution of cases on their merits

weighs against dismissal. Finally, the monetary sanction imposed

by the Magistrate Judge demonstrates that a less drastic sanction

than dismissal is available, appropriate, and effective. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel has substantially

complied with remedying the discovery defaults. Dismissal is not

warranted under the circumstances based on the lack of a warning

and that the most severe sanction is legally unjustified.

However, Mr. Falcon has a history in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California of failing

to timely respond to discovery, court orders, and motions. Given

this history, the representations in his Declaration that there

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 05/30/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

will be no further delay in responding to discovery and in

prosecuting this action ring hollow. Mr. Falcon is expressly

warned that any future failure to timely comply with discovery

and court orders or to timely respond to motions will result in

the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00487-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 05/30/07 Page 7 of 7