Ortiz v. Amazon.com LLC et al

Filing 87

Discovery Order, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 5/31/2018. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/29/2018. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL ORTIZ,

Case No. 17-cv-03820-JSW (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

DISCOVERY ORDER;
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
10

AMAZON.COM LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 84

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On May 25, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff Michael Ortiz to appear for his deposition in

14

San Francisco, California. May 25, 2018 Disc. Order at 4-5, Dkt. No. 82. The Court further

15

ordered that Plaintiff‟s deposition would occur after he had produced his cell phone records and

16

before Plaintiff could depose any additional Defendant Golden State FC LLC witnesses. Id. The

17

Court stated the following:

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff‟s discovery conduct is more appropriate to a party
appearing in pro se than to a party represented by five attorneys
licensed to practice before this Court. The Court admonishes
Plaintiff‟s attorneys to conduct themselves in a more professional
manner going forward. The Court also reminds Plaintiff and his
attorneys that they have a responsibility to “to secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; see Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(4) (“Every
member of the bar of this Court and any attorney permitted to
practice in this Court under Civil L.R. 11 must . . . [p]ractice with
the honesty, care, and decorum required for the fair and efficient
administration of justice.”). Plaintiff cannot wait until the eleventh
hour – let alone three weeks past a Court-ordered deadline – to
inform Golden State that he is unable to comply with his discovery
obligations. These delays could have been avoided or reduced, had
Plaintiff promptly informed Golden State of his changes in
circumstance that affected his ability to observe the Court„s Order or
to be deposed.
Id. at 5. Finally, “[t]he Court reserve[d] the right to impose sanctions against Plaintiff for

1

violations of this and any future Court order, as well as any future discovery violations.” Id.

2

After the Court issued its Discovery Order, Plaintiff filed a joint discovery letter regarding

3

the timing of the depositions of Golden State‟s persons most knowledgeable. PMK Ltr., Dkt. No.

4

84.
Golden State thereafter filed a Statement regarding the PMK Letter. Stmt., Dkt. No. 85.

6

Nancy Villarreal, counsel for Golden State, declares that she informed Plaintiff‟s counsel Cesar

7

Alvarado that “the [May 25, 2018] Order rendered moot the relief sought in the [PMK] Discovery

8

Letter” and that “Defendant would prefer not to burden the court with an unnecessary letter on an

9

issue the Court had already ruled on.” Id. at 2; id. at ECF pp.4-5 (Villarreal Decl.) ¶ 2; see id. at

10

ECF pp. 7-12 (Ex. A). To the extent Plaintiff wished to file the PMK Letter, Golden State “had

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

revised the Discovery Letter to reflect the Order and Defendant‟s request that Plaintiff not file the

12

Discovery Letter.” Stmt. at 2; Villarreal Decl. ¶ 2; id., Ex. A at ECF p.7 (email from Villarreal to

13

Alvarado); id. at ECF pp.8-12 (PMK letter with Golden State‟s revisions).

14

The PMK Letter Plaintiff filed does not include Golden State‟s revisions. Compare PMK

15

Ltr. with Stmt., Ex. A at ECF pp.8-12. Ms. Villarreal emailed Mr. Alvarado with the revisions at

16

3:54 p.m. on May 25, 2018. Villarreal Decl. ¶ 2; see Stmt., Ex. A at ECF p.7. Ms. Villarreal

17

declares that at 4:08 p.m., Mr. Alvarado “e-mailed [her] with changes he made to the Discovery

18

Letter regarding the class list. . . . Mr. Alvarado made no mention of the Discovery Letter

19

regarding the PMK depositions.” Villarreal Decl. ¶ 3. At 4:47 p.m., Plaintiff filed the PMK Letter

20

without Golden State‟s revisions. The PMK Letter includes the following statement: “I, Cesar

21

Alvarado, attest that Nancy Villareal has concurred in the filing of this document. L.R. 5-1(i).”

22

PMK Letter at 2. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an amended letter or sought to

23

correct the letter so it reflects Golden State‟s changes.

24

In light of the foregoing, the Court STRIKES the PMK Letter. The Court addressed the

25

timing of Plaintiff‟s deposition in relation to the depositions of Golden State‟s witnesses in its

26

May 25, 2018 Discovery Order.

27
28

The Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why his counsel should not be
sanctioned for, at a minimum, the fees and costs Golden State incurred in connection with the
2

1
2

PMK Letter and its Statement. Plaintiff shall file a response no later than May 31, 2018.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5
6

Dated: May 29, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

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
27
28
3