Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06702/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06702-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oracle Corporation
Defendant
Ashit Zinzuwadia
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASHIT ZINZUWADIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ORACLE CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-6702 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Defendant Oracle Corporation’s

Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant Oracle Corporation re-filed its motion for summary judgment on October 8, 2009. 

Docket No. 78. Plaintiff Ashit Zinzuwadia failed to oppose the motion. This is not the first time

that plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion for summary judgment. On December 1, 2008, plaintiff

was ordered to oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment by February 2, 2009. Docket No.

54. On January 30, 2009, plaintiff was instructed to contact the Volunteer Legal Services Program

(“VLSP”), for possible representation, and ordered to file a status report within ten days thereafter. 

Docket No. 56. On February 11, 2009, plaintiff filed a status report, asking for “an additional three

or four weeks to obtain legal representation, and to stay proceedings until my attorney is able to set

further schedules with the Court.” Docket No. 57. The extension was granted. Plaintiff did not

acquire representation. Nor did plaintiff file an opposition to the 2008 motion for summary

judgment. In fact, the VLSP help desk indicated that plaintiff did not cooperate with them or follow

their instructions about contacting a pro bono attorney.1

Moreover, plaintiff has failed to fulfill his discovery obligations. Plaintiff was ordered to

answer, by December 31, 2008, four special interrogatories propounded by defendant. Docket No.

54. Plaintiff did not respond. On September 28, 2009, defendant was ordered to re-formulate its

Case 3:06-cv-06702-MHP Document 86 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

ENDNOTES

written interrogatories and re-serve them in a format in which plaintiff, if he chose, could hand write

his responses in spaces provided in the interrogatories. Docket No. 77. Plaintiff was ordered to

provide responses to those interrogatories on or before October 9, 2009. Id. The court specified that

it would dismiss plaintiff’s action if he failed to respond to the interrogatories. Plaintiff failed to

respond to the interrogatories.

This case was filed in October 2006. The events giving rise to the claims occurred in 2004,

almost six years ago. Dismissal and judgment against plaintiff is warranted by plaintiff’s repeated

failure to oppose the motion for summary judgment and his repeated failure to respond to court

ordered discovery.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this

action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-06702-MHP Document 86 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1. The court notes that at the outset of this case plaintiff was represented by counsel. However,

his cooperation with counsel was so inadequate and plaintiff was so obstreperous that it interfered

with counsel acting in his client’s best interest. Finally, counsel despaired and sought leave to

withdraw which was granted.

Case 3:06-cv-06702-MHP Document 86 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 3