UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 13, 2009
SUSAN V. KLAT, PLAINTIFF,
MITCHELL REPAIR INFORMATION COMPANY, LLC AND SNAP-ON, INC., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Doc. No. 36
On June 4, 2009, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued a Report and Recommendations suggesting that this court dismiss the above-captioned matter with prejudice due to Plaintiff's violations of court orders compelling her to submit to a deposition. (Doc. No. 36.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on June 17, 2009 (Doc. No. 37), and Defendants provided a Reply on June 22, 2009 (Doc. No. 38.)
The court reviews a magistrate judge's R&R according to the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. The court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-74 (1980).
In her objections, Plaintiff reiterates the same arguments she has advanced previously. For example, she alleges Defendants have failed to respond to her discovery requests and are attempting to harass her through unnecessary attempts to obtain information they already have. According to Plaintiff, these are valid reasons to refuse to submit to a live deposition. Instead, Plaintiff has attempted to dictate the conditions of the deposition by offering to answer interrogatories or submit to a telephone interview. These arguments have been dismissed by this court and the Magistrate Judge on several prior occasions. This court sees no reason to believe Defendants wish to use the deposition as a tool of harassment. Barring such a concern, Defendants do not need to provide any "reasonable showing" or justification for pursuing their discovery rights under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30.
The court has provided Plaintiff with ample opportunity to comply with its orders and, as described in the Report, has been exceedingly accommodating of Plaintiff's concerns about her safety and the scope of deposition questions. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has willfully refused to comply with the court's orders. Plaintiff was clearly warned that her failure to comply would likely result in dismissal of her case.
Therefore, having carefully considered the thorough and thoughtful R&R, the record before the court, Petitioner's objections to the R&R, and the applicable authorities, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. (Doc. No. 36.) Accordingly, the action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.