Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.
Filing
60
ORDER Regarding 59 Discovery Letter. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 12/19/2018. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
LETTER
v.
9
10
RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC.,
Re: Dkt. No. 59
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH (KAW)
12
13
GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,
Case No. 18-cv-01404-PJH (KAW)
Plaintiff,
14
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
LETTER
v.
15
16
SERVICE WEST INC.,
Re: Dkt. No. 59
Defendant.
17
18
On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell filed these cases against Defendant
19
Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. and Service West, Inc., alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
20
and national origin. (R&S Compl. ¶ 5, R&S Dkt. No. 1; SW Compl. ¶ 5, SW Dkt. No. 1.1) On
21
November 29, 2018, Defendants filed separate but identical discovery letters regarding Plaintiff's
22
refusal to respond to Requests for Production ("RFPs") or to provide responsive documents, as
23
well as Plaintiff's failure to provide initial disclosures to Defendant Rudolph and Sletten. (R&S
24
Letter, R&S Dkt. No. 56; SW Letter, SW Dkt. No. 55.)
25
26
On December 11, 2018, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to respond to the RFPs and to
provide initial disclosures, explaining that "Plaintiff is not entitled to refuse to respond to the RFPs
27
28
1
"R&S Dkt." refers to the docket in Case No. 18-cv-1402-PJH, while "SW Dkt." refers to the
docket in Case No. 18-cv-1404-PJH.
1
or to provide initial disclosures." (R&S Dkt. No. 58 at 3; SW Dkt. No. 58 at 3.) The Court
2
warned Plaintiff that failure to cooperate in discovery could lead to sanctions, including monetary,
3
evidentiary, or terminating sanctions. (R&S Dkt. No. 58 at 4; SW Dkt. No. 58 at 4.)
On December 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed identical letters -- dated December 2, 2018 --
5
responding to Defendants' discovery letters. (R&S Dkt. No. 59; SW Dkt. No. 59.) Plaintiff
6
asserted that she had addressed Defendants' discovery concerns in a June 3, 2018 correspondence.
7
(R&S Dkt. No. 59 at 2; SW Dkt. No. 59 at 2.) Further, because "the facts of the matter remaining
8
the same as presented in the complaint and the case management statements offered by
9
plaintiff . . . no further orders regarding plaintiff to produce any documents would be necessary."
10
(Id.) Plaintiff also attached the June 3, 2018 correspondence, which stated that the discovery she
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
intended to provide was located in the complaint and the case management statement. (R&S Dkt.
12
No. 59 at 5; SW Dkt. No. 59 at 5.)
This is not a sufficient reason to not produce documents. It is not enough to state that the
13
14
facts of the case are the same as in the complaint and the case management statements; Plaintiff
15
must still prove her case with actual evidence, and provide that evidence to Defendants to the
16
extent it has been requested. Plaintiff cannot rely on allegations in her complaint or filings to
17
prosecute the case; she must substantiate her claims.
For those reasons, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' RFPs and to
18
19
provide initial disclosures, as previously ordered in the Court's December 11, 2018 order. (See
20
R&S Dkt. No. 58 at 4; SW Dkt. No. 58 at 4.) Plaintiff's responses remain due by December 26,
21
2018.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: December 19, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court gave Plaintiff fourteen days from December 11, 2018 to provide discovery responses.
As fourteen days from December 11, 2018 is December 25, 2018, a holiday, Plaintiff's response is
due on the next business day.
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?