Lee v. California Public Utilities Commission et al

Filing 171

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part 157 Motion for Sanctions. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ALIK LEE, Plaintiff, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Case No.16-cv-00983-VC (JSC) ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S THIRD MOTION FOR SANCTIONS v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Re: Dkt. No. 157 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Alik Yusef Lee filed this Title VII employment discrimination action against his 17 former employer, the California Public Utilities Commission. On June 6, 2017, the district court 18 granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and issued judgment in its favor. (Dkt. Nos. 19 169 & 170.) Defendant’s third motion for sanctions remains pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 20 157.) Defendant contends that sanctions are warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 37(b)(2)(A) based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 10, 2017 discovery 22 order in three ways: (1) failing to provide responsive documents, (2) failing to pay previously 23 ordered sanctions, and (3) continuing to use Jose Ruiz, his self-titled “communications proxy,” 24 who is not an attorney, to communicate with counsel. Defendant seeks an order precluding 25 Plaintiff from presenting evidence of his alleged lost wages at trial and awarding Defendant its 26 attorneys’ fees for preparing the motion for sanctions in the amount of $1,320.00. 27 28 Given the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Defendant’s favor, the request for evidence preclusion sanctions is moot; however, the request for monetary sanctions is not. 1 Plaintiff was previously ordered to pay $500 in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 37(a)(5)(A) based on his flagrant disregard of the discovery rules. (Dkt. No. 140.) Plaintiff has 3 failed to pay those court ordered sanctions and continued to disregard this Court’s orders to 4 provide Defendant with discovery. Plaintiff does not deny that he failed to provide the discovery 5 ordered by the Court or pay the Court ordered sanction. (Dkt. No. 160.) 6 Given Plaintiff’s continued failure to comply with his discovery obligations and this 7 Court’s orders, Defendant’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is ordered to 8 pay Defendant $1,320 for its reasonable expenses incurred in filing yet another motion for 9 sanctions. Plaintiff shall remit this amount and the previously ordered $500 in sanctions (if not 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 already paid) to Defendant within 30 days of this Order. This Order terminates Docket No. 157. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2017 15 16 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?