Thede v. United Airlines, Inc.

Filing 75

ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR FOR A DEPOSITION by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton re 74 Administrative Motion. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2020) Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JEREMIAH THEDE,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-03528-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO
APPEAR FOR A DEPOSITION

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 74

Defendant.

12
13

On December 15, 2020, defendant filed an administrative motion for an order (1)

14

compelling plaintiff to appear for a deposition and (2) extending the pretrial and trial dates

15

by 45 days. Dkt. 74. In support of its motion, defendant details a pattern of behavior by

16

plaintiff over the past several months of discovery that has made it difficult for defendant

17

to develop its case. Id. at 2-4. Defendant specifies that plaintiff has failed to provide

18

sufficient discovery responses, Dkt. 74-1 ¶¶ 3, 5, failed to appear for two noticed

19

depositions, id. ¶¶ 7, 9-11, and requested a four-month postponement of his mandatory

20

settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Westmore, id. ¶ 8. Defendant explains

21

that, at least concerning one of the missed depositions and the settlement conference,

22

plaintiff’s then-counsel stated only that plaintiff was “unwell,” id. ¶ 7, or “ill,” id. ¶ 8.

23

On November 25, 2020, the court permitted plaintiff’s then-counsel to withdraw

24

from this action, provided that counsel continue to forward all filings until plaintiff appears

25

pro se, plaintiff retains substitute counsel, or December 31, 2020. Dkt. 73. Plaintiff’s

26

response to this motion, if any, was due December 21, 2020. As of the date of this order,

27

plaintiff has failed to respond or otherwise explain his pattern of delay.

28

The court GRANTS defendant’s request for an order compelling plaintiff to appear

1

for a remote video deposition via Zoom. Defendant may notice that deposition for no

2

earlier than Wednesday, December 30, 2020 and no later than Wednesday, January 6,

3

2021. Absent extraordinary circumstances provided by plaintiff in writing at least 48

4

hours in advance of the noticed deposition, plaintiff must appear at that deposition. A

5

party’s deposition is the bare minimum that any opposing party should receive.

6

At this time, the court DENIES defendant’s request to continue the pretrial and trial

7

dates. In the event plaintiff fails to appear for this third-noticed deposition, the court may

8

altogether dismiss his action with prejudice for failure to comply with this order and failure

9

to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Under that scenario, then, the existing dates and
deadlines become moot. In the event plaintiff does appear and defendant still needs

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

additional time to develop its case, defendant may renew this request.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December __, 2020
23
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2