Mitchell v. Sacramento City Unified School District

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/30/2012. Defendant's 45 Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall appear at defense counsel's office for her deposition on 5/2/2012 at 9:00 AM. Plaintiff's Objections to videotap ing of deposition are OVERRULED. Defendant's 45 Request for Sanctions is DENIED. Any failure to abide to Court's Order with respect to either 5/2/2012 deposition or its videotaping by plaintiff or plaintiffs counsel will result in imposition of sanctions against them. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

EKIN MITCHELL,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-11-0362 LKK DAD

v.
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT,

ORDER

14
Defendant.
15

/

16

This matter came before the court on April 27, 2012, for hearing of defendant’s

17

motion to compel deposition and request for sanctions. Gloria Godinez, Esq. appeared for

18

defendant Sacramento City Unified School District. There was no appearance by plaintiff or

19

plaintiff’s counsel.
Upon consideration of the defendant’s arguments on file1 and at the hearing, and

20
21

for the reasons set forth in detail on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1. Defendant’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 45) is granted;

23

2. Plaintiff shall appear at the office of defense counsel for her deposition on May

24

2, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.;

25
26

1

Plaintiff’s counsel did not file an opposition to defendant’s motion.
1

1

3. Plaintiff’s objections to the videotaping of the deposition are overruled;

2

4. Defendant’s request for sanctions (Doc. No. 45) is denied2; and

3

5. Any failure to abide by the court’s order with respect to either the May 2, 2012

4

deposition or its videotaping by plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel will result in the imposition of

5

sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel.

6

DATED: April 30, 2012.

7
8
9
10

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.civil\mitchell0362.oah.042712

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

As explained at the hearing, defendant’s motion for sanctions was denied only because
defense counsel re-set the deposition in question after plaintiff’s counsel would not confirm the
originally noticed date. Thus, plaintiff did not fail to appear at a scheduled deposition.
2