Trustees of the Bricklayers Local No. 3 Pension Trust et al v. Huddleston

Filing 50

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 47 Motion to Strike (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

TRUSTEES OF THE BRICKLAYERS
LOCAL NO. 3 PENSION TRUST, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S
ANSWER (Dkt. No. 47)

v.

14
15

Case No: 10-1708 JSC

KENNETH HUDDLESTON,
Defendant.

16
17

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer to

18
19

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 1 (Dkt. No. 47.) Plaintiffs assert that striking

20

Defendant’s answer is justified because Defendant has abandoned defense of this suit by

21

failing to provide court-ordered discovery. After carefully considering the argument

22

submitted by Plaintiffs, and in light of Defendant’s continued failure to respond, including

23

failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.
DISCUSSION

24

When a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” the Court may

25
26

strike pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii). On November 3, 2011, Defendant, who

27
28

1

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 4, 26.)

1

represents himself pro se, failed to appear at a scheduled Case Management Conference. On

2

January 5, 2012, Defendant again did not appear in court for a scheduled hearing. Plaintiffs

3

represent that they have been unable to contact Defendant since August 18, 2011, when the

4

parties participated in a telephonic settlement conference. Since that time, Defendant’s phone

5

number is no longer in service, mail sent to both of Defendant’s mailing addresses, including

6

the address he provided to the Court, is returned by the U.S. Post Office, and Defendant does

7

not respond to email correspondence.
Plaintiffs’ discovery requests by February 3, 2012, noting that Defendant would have “one

10

final opportunity to supplement previously submitted discovery and provide pertinent and

11

signed responses to all of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests as required by the Federal Rules of

12
Northern District of California

On January 6, 2012, the Court ordered Defendant to submit responsive materials to

9

United States District Court

8

Civil Procedure.” (Dkt. No. 45.) Defendant was warned that if he failed to comply, his

13

answer could be stricken, and he might be found in default. On January 23, 2012, service on

14

Defendant was again returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 46.) More than three months after

15

the court-ordered discovery deadline, Defendant still has not complied.

16

In light of Defendant’s failure to comply with a court order, protracted absence and

17

unavailability, and apparent disinclination to defend this action, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike

18

Defendant’s Answer to the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Court concludes

19

that oral argument is unnecessary and vacates the hearing scheduled for May 31, 2012.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: May 23, 2012

______________________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2