Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California resolved an informal discovery dispute concerning Plaintiff Malissa Flores's failures to appear for two noticed depositions. The Court granted a final limited extension for Plaintiff to complete her deposition, warned that further noncompliance could result in sanctions or dismissal, and ordered her to pay Defendants $2,777.15 in reasonable expenses. The Court declined at that time to award attorney's fees.
Holdings
- The court granted one final limited extension for Plaintiff to complete her deposition and warned that failure to comply with the order could result in additional sanctions, including evidentiary sanctions and dismissal.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Plaintiff was required to pay Defendants $2,777.15 for reasonable expenses caused by her failures to appear for deposition.
- The court declined at that point to award Defendants attorney's fees.
Questions Presented
- What sanctions and remedial relief were appropriate for Plaintiff's failures to appear for duly noticed depositions?
- Whether Defendants were entitled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to recover reasonable expenses caused by Plaintiff's failures to appear.
- Whether Defendants were entitled at that time to recover attorney's fees in addition to deposition-related costs.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Lanier v. San Joaquin Valley Officials Ass'n, No. 1:14-cv-01938-EPG, 2016 WL 4764669, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016)(followed)
- Jones v. Frazesn, No. 2:09-cv-02758 RCT, 2009 WL 3254905, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2009)(followed)
- Lugo v. Sham, No. C00-11-4MMC(JL)(JCS), 2001 WL 348984, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2001)(followed)
- Roth v. AIG, No. 2:24-cv-01124-TLN-CKD, 2025 WL 216266, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2025)(distinguished)
- MG Premium Ltd. v. Does, No. CV 21-8533-MCS (KKx), 2023 WL 4291526, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2023)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…