Anderson v. USDA et al.

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/9/2016 VACATING the Motion Hearing on 50 Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions set for 9/28/2016; GRANTING 50 Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions; PRECLUDING the plaintiff from mentioning, referencing, or introducing any evidence regarding his "suggestion" or Form AD-287 in any future motions or at trial in this action. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EZELL ANDERSON, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:14-cv-2307 JAM CKD PS

ORDER

USDA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for evidentiary sanctions. Because oral

17
18

argument is not of material assistance, this matter is submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R.

19

230(g). Upon review of the documents in support, no opposition having been timely filed,1 and

20

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Defendant moves for evidentiary sanctions against plaintiff due to plaintiff’s refusal to

21
22

answer certain questions at deposition. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(ii),

23

“[i]f a party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” the court may “prohibit[ ]

24

the disobedient party from …introducing designated matters in evidence.” In this case, plaintiff

25

was ordered to appear for a continued deposition, and plaintiff was warned at least twice that if he

26

1

27
28

Because plaintiff had not timely filed opposition, the matter was continued and plaintiff was
afforded additional time to file opposition. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file opposition
would result in granting of the relief requested on the motion. ECF No. 53. Plaintiff failed to file
opposition within the additional time allowed.
1

1

did not answer questions about his “suggestion” to the USDA or Form AD-287, evidentiary

2

sanctions could be imposed. Plaintiff expressly stated he understood the warning provided, and

3

then chose not to answer any questions regarding the limited topics at his continued deposition,

4

i.e., his “suggestion” to the USDA and Form AD-287. Plaintiff’s voluntary decision not to

5

answer questions on the designated topics at his continued deposition prejudices the ability of the

6

United States to defend this action, for which the most appropriate sanction that is reasonably

7

related to the plaintiff’s refusal to answer questions at his court-ordered continued deposition as

8

to his “suggestion” and Form AD-287 is to exclude any evidence relating to these topics in any

9

motions or at trial.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. The hearing date of September 28, 2016 on defendants’ motion for evidentiary

12

sanctions is vacated.

13

2. Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 50) is granted.

14

3. Plaintiff is precluded from mentioning, referencing, or introducing any evidence

15

regarding his “suggestion” or Form AD-287 in any future motions or at trial in this action.

16

Dated: September 9, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19

4 anderson2307.subm.evidsanc

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2