Doe v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore Regarding 42 Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/7/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN DOE,

Case No. 16-cv-06950-KAW
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO
ATTEND HIS DEPOSITION

v.

9
10

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

11

Re: Dkt. No. 42

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
On July 5, 2017, Defendants filed a discovery letter seeking an order dismissing the case

13
14

or, in the alternative, requiring Plaintiff John Doe to attend his deposition. (Defs.' Letter, Dkt. No.

15

42 at 1.) Prior to filing the letter, Defendants sent Plaintiff a draft of the letter on June 23, 2017,

16

requesting a response by July 3, 2017. Plaintiff, however, did not respond.
Upon review of the discovery letter, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution

17
18

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS Defendants' request to

19

compel Plaintiff to sit for his deposition.1 The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer, and to

20

pick a date within the next two weeks to conduct Plaintiff's deposition; the meet and confer need

21

not be in-person. Plaintiff must appear for his deposition, which may last up to one day of seven

22

(7) hours. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d). Plaintiff is advised that his failure to attend his deposition

23

may result in sanctions, including the dismissal of his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) ("The court

24

where the action is pending may, on motion, order sanctions if . . . a person . . . fails, after being

25

served with proper notice, to appear for that person's deposition").
Additionally, the parties are reminded of their obligation to meet and confer in good faith

26
27
28

1

The Court does not find dismissal to be warranted at this time.

1

with respect to any discovery disputes.2 (Judge Westmore's Standing Order ¶ 12.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: July 7, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

According to Defendants' letter, Defendants repeatedly attempted to meet and confer with
Plaintiff, but Plaintiff failed to appear at the scheduled meetings on June 2, 2017, June 12, 2017,
and June 16, 2017. (Defs.' Letter at 1-2.) While Plaintiff is pro se, Plaintiff is still required to
comply with the Court's rules and standing orders.
2