Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Klat v. Mitchell Repair Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 6, 2009

SUSAN V. KLAT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MITCHELL REPAIR COMPANY, LLC AND SNAP-ON, INC., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND INFORMATION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

[Doc. No. 20.]

Plaintiff was noticed for a deposition on April 29, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in the courtroom of the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo. (Defendants' Exhibit A.) Plaintiff notified Defendants she would not be attending the deposition. (Defendants' Exhibit B.) On April 29, 2009, Defendants moved for a court order compelling Plaintiff's attendance at a deposition. Defendants also requested sanctions in the amount of $750.00, for the expenses incurred in filing the motion. Plaintiff submitted an opposition on 6, 2009. The Court finds this matter suitable for submission without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1).

Plaintiff argues her deposition is unnecessary because Defendants already know her work history, conditions of employment, rate of pay, standards of accountability, and various duties. This action is the Court because Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act. While it is true Defendants may already have some knowledge of Plaintiff's work history, conditions of 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.

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 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.

20090506

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.