Smith v. Autozone, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER REGARDING JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER re 20 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Autozone, Inc. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/15/2013. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

SENECA SMITH,

9

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 12-cv-06438-YGR
ORDER REGARDING JOINT DISCOVERY
DISPUTE LETTER (DKT. NO. 20)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

vs.
AUTOZONE, INC., and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

14
15

The parties have filed a joint letter brief in which Defendant seeks to compel discovery

16

responses and Plaintiff’s attendance at his deposition. In addition, if the Court elects not to

17

continue the parties’ deadline for filing a summary judgment motion beyond the current date of

18

October 29, 2013, Defendant requests sanctions in the form of Plaintiff being prohibited from

19

submitting (i) documents or evidence that should have been produced in response to discovery and

20

(ii) testimony that would have been the subject of deposition questioning. The Court will address

21

each issue in turn.

22

Defendant has served Plaintiff with special interrogatories and requests for production, to

23

which Plaintiff served no objections or responses, despite numerous extensions. As to Defendant’s

24

request to compel responses to this discovery, the request is GRANTED. Plaintiff has waived his

25

objections by failing to timely respond. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to provide complete written

26

responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories and requests for production by November 1, 2013.

27
28

Next, Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s attendance at his deposition. While Plaintiff
objected to the deposition notice by stating that he was then seeking new counsel and that current

1

counsel intended to file a motion to withdraw, this is not a valid objection. Defendant’s request to

2

compel Plaintiff’s attendance at his deposition is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to appear

3

at a deposition to occur no later than November 1, 2013.

4
5
6

Finally, the Court hereby CONTINUES the deadline to file a summary judgment motion to
November 26, 2013. In light of this extension, Defendant’s request for sanctions is moot.
Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this Court’s Order may result in evidentiary

7

sanctions that could affect future proceedings in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that their

8

duties and obligations to Plaintiff continue until this Court enters an order approving their

9

withdrawal as counsel.
This Order terminates Dkt. No. 20.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: October 15, 2013

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2