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).

Download PDF
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 ΒΆ 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

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?