Klat v. Mitchell Repair Information Company, LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff's deposition and Defendants' request for sanctions is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 5/6/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(tkl)(jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff was noticed for a deposition on April 29, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in the courtroom of the 18 Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo. (Defendants' Exhibit A.) Plaintiff notified Defendants she would 19 not be attending the deposition. (Defendants' Exhibit B.) On April 29, 2009, Defendants moved for a 20 court order compelling Plaintiff's attendance at a deposition. Defendants also requested sanctions in the 21 amount of $750.00, for the expenses incurred in filing the motion. Plaintiff submitted an opposition on 22 May 6, 2009. The Court finds this matter suitable for submission without oral argument pursuant to 23 Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). 24 Plaintiff argues her deposition is unnecessary because Defendants already know her work history, 25 conditions of employment, rate of pay, standards of accountability, and various duties. This action is 26 before the Court because Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act. While it is 27 true Defendants may already have some knowledge of Plaintiff's work history, conditions of 28 /// 1
08cv1907

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN V. KLAT, Plaintiff, v. MITCHELL REPAIR INFORMATION COMPANY, LLC and SNAP-ON, INC., Defendants.

Civil No.

08cv1907 JM (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [Doc. No. 20.]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

employment, rate of pay, standards of accountability, and various duties, Defendants are still entitled to depose Plaintiff in order to clearly ascertain the nature of her complaint. (See April 28, 2009 order of the Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller overruling Plaintiff's objections to the Case Management Order at 2.) It also appears Plaintiff would feel more comfortable if she was not deposed in a courtroom. Judge Bencivengo's courtroom was made available for the convenience of the parties. However, there is no requirement Plaintiff be deposed in a courtroom. For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff's deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit to a deposition no later than May 15, 2009. The deposition shall occur at the office of an independent court reporter. Defendants' request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice. Should Plaintiff fail to appear at the noticed deposition, this Court shall recommend the matter to the Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller for appropriate sanctions, which may include issue preclusion or terminating sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 6, 2009

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO United States Magistrate Judge

2

08cv1907