Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Arias v. Ruan Transport Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 21, 2017

JAVIER ARIAS, Plaintiff,
v.
RUAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO BE PRODUCED FOR A SECOND DEPOSITION ORDER VACATING APRIL 26, 2017 HEARING (ECF No. 52, 54)

         Currently before the Court is Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to be produced for a second day of deposition testimony and require Plaintiff to pay all fees and costs required to compel his attendance, including reasonable attorneys' fees. (ECF No. 52.) On April 20, 2017, the Court set the motion for compel for hearing on April 26, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No. 54.)

         The Court, having reviewed the record, finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the matter is taken under submission. The previously scheduled hearing set on April 26, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. is vacated and the parties will not be required to appear at that time.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On January 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus. (ECF No. 1-1.) On February 29, 2016, Defendant removed this action to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) This action is based on Plaintiffs termination by Defendant on November 12, 2014. Defendant contends that Plaintiff was terminated after he refused to take a Department of Transportation mandated random drug test required for commercial truck driver. Plaintiff brings twelve causes of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and for violation of the California Labor Code and applicable wage orders for non-payment of alleged applicable wages and failure to produce employment documents. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims are based on allegations that Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of an alleged disability.

         On April 19, 2017, the parties filed a joint statement of discovery disagreement in which Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to be produced for a second day of deposition testimony, wherein Plaintiff complies with his notice of deposition and produces the categories of information and documents described in his notice of deposition. (ECF No. 52.) On April 20, 2017, the Court issued an order disregarding the parties' joint statement of discovery disagreement (ECF No. 52) unless and until the parties complied with the requirements of either Local Rule 251 or the Court's informal discovery process. (ECF No. 53.) Subsequently, on April 20, 2017, based on emails received from the parties, the Court issued a minute order construing the April 19, 2017 joint statement of discovery disagreement as a joint statement pursuant to Local Rule 251 on Defendant's motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (ECF No. 54.) The Court set the hearing as to Defendant's motion to compel for April 26, 2017. (ECF No. 54.)

         II. STANDARD

         Motions to compel are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which states, in pertinent part:

(a) Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery.
(3) Specific Motions.
(B) To Compel a Discovery Response. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if:
(iv) a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that inspection be permitted-or fails to permit inspection-as required under Rule 34.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

         Rule 37 states that "an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4).

         Depositions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, which states, in pertinent part:

(a) When a Deposition May Be Taken.
(1) Without Leave. A party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of court except as provided in Rule 30(a)(2). The deponent's attendance ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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