Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05794/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05794-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Caymas Systems, Inc.
Defendant
Abiodun M. Sodipo
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABIODUN M. SODIPO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CAYMAS SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-05794 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff. The first seeks

injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Defendant, who previously terminated

Plaintiff, to rehire him. The second seeks sanctions for Defendant’s alleged failure to

comply with discovery obligations. The third seeks permission from the Court to argue the

first two on an expedited schedule.

As to the first motion, the Court has already ruled on Plaintiff’s request for injunctive

relief--twice. The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of those

rulings. While the Court empathizes with Plaintiff’s situation, the Court remains of the view

that injunctive relief is inappropriate in this case, notwithstanding the hardship caused to

Plaintiff by the lack of a stable source of income. The difficulty, inconvenience, and expense

of pursuing litigation against a former employer does not justify compelling that employer to

finance the litigation against it by rehiring the employee it has terminated, at least not on the

Case 3:06-cv-05794-CRB Document 90 Filed 12/21/06 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\5794\8 - order re discovery sanctions.wpd 2

facts of this case. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s previous written order, the decision

to deny a preliminary injunction will stand.

The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. Sanctions are appropriate

only in extraordinary cases, and this Court does not lightly impose them, especially where, as

here, there has been no willful misconduct. On December 1, 2006, the Court held a hearing

on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court informed the parties that at least some portion

of the case would go forward and instructed them to proceed with discovery. The Court set a

date for Plaintiff to have his deposition taken: January 9, 2007. In setting that date, the Court

struck a balance between Plaintiff’s request to move the proceedings along as quickly as

possible in light of his difficult circumstances, and defense counsel’s need to avoid a conflict

with another engagment in mid-December, namely an unrelated trial in Sonoma County

Superior Court. The Court further informed Plaintiff that he was entitled to receive

responses prior to January 9, 2007, to the discovery requests he had already submitted to

Defendant. 

In no way has Defendant violated any order or instruction of this Court. The Court

anticipates that Defendant will still comply with the Court’s instruction to provide timely

responses to the six interrogatories originally submitted by Plaintiff via e-mail on October

21, 2006. To provide Plaintiff an opportunity to review the requested materials them prior to

his deposition, the Court further ORDERS Defendant to provide these responses not later

than December 31, 2006--precisely thirty days after which the Court instructed the parties

that discovery would proceed in the case.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, and DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s

request for an expedited hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05794-CRB Document 90 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2