- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW PETERSON, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00701-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTED ISSUES 13 v. 14 (Doc. 61) THOMSON INT’L, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the “Joint Request for Court Resolution of the Disputed 18 Issues” of Defendant Thomson International, Inc. and Plaintiff Carson Brenda. (Doc. 61). As set 19 forth in the introductory paragraph of the joint filing, the parties’ request is made pursuant to 20 Rules 30, 34 and 37, Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff does not oppose the relief sough by Defendant. See 21 id. p. 7 (“Plaintiff counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Carson Brenda (Dkt. 22 60) and has no position other than what is stated in the motion.”). Accordingly, the Court 23 construes the parties’ joint filing as an unopposed motion to compel. 24 Background 25 Plaintiffs are eight individuals from three different states and Canada that allege during 26 June and July 2020, they suffered damages after consuming Salmonella-contaminated onions that 27 Defendant introduced into the stream of commerce. Relevant here, Plaintiff Brenda alleges he consumed a tainted onion on or around July 1, 2020, and suffered shortly afterwards a number of 1 symptoms that required treatment and hospitalization. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 49-54. He seeks recovery for 2 medical care, lost income and other damages. Plaintiffs claim Defendant is strictly liable for 3 selling an unreasonably dangerous and defective food product, and that Defendant may also be 4 liable under breach of warranty, negligence, and negligence per se theories of recovery. 5 Defendant contends its onions were not contaminated while in its possession, custody and control 6 and it did not cause any Salmonella outbreak that harmed Plaintiffs. 7 On September 15, 2022, Defendant served Request for Production of Documents, Set 8 One, upon Plaintiff Brenda. (Doc. 61 pp. 2-3). The discovery request directed Plaintiff Brenda to 9 produce a copy of the front and back of his driver’s license which Defendant requires in order to 10 seek relevant records from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Id. Plaintiff 11 Brenda never produced the document. Id. (citing Chen Decl., ¶ 5.). 12 On February 17, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff Brenda transmitted to Defendant an executed 13 CDC authorization form that Defendant requires to facilitate the CDC’s provision of relevant 14 records to Defendant; however, the authorization form was unnotarized. Despite Defendant’s 15 request of Plaintiff Brenda to provide a notarized CDC authorization form, Plaintiff Brenda has 16 not provided Defendant with the requested, notarized form. Id. (citing Chen Decl., ¶ 8). 17 Separately, Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff Brenda to occur on January 18, 18 2024. Id. p. 3. Despite providing more than six weeks’ advance notice, Plaintiff Brenda did not 19 appear for his deposition. Id. 20 In connection with each of the three discovery issues summarized above, counsel for 21 Plaintiff Brenda has informed Defendant she has been unable to contact Plaintiff. Id. Counsel for 22 Plaintiff Brenda separately has moved to withdraw from representation on the grounds that, over 23 the past approximately four months, Plaintiff Brenda has not responded to counsel’s 24 communications. (Doc. 60-1). 25 Legal Standard 26 “Litigants are entitled to seek from each other discovery of information that is “relevant to 27 the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Generally, if a party responding to a 1 court through a motion to compel. “[T]he party moving to compel bears the burden of 2 demonstrating why the [responding party’s] objections are not justified.” Harris v. Quillen, No. 3 1:17-cv-01370-DAD-SAB (PC), 2020 WL 4251069, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2020) (citing cases). 4 “This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of 5 the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and 6 why the responding party’s objections are not meritorious.” Id. 7 Discussion 8 Here, no party disputes that the documents for which Defendant seeks production and the 9 demand that Plaintiff Brenda appear for deposition are relevant and appropriate under Rules 26 10 and 34. Indeed, the Court previously has determined that the types of documents at issue here are 11 relevant. (Doc. 36). Plaintiff Brenda offers no reason for withholding production of either the 12 notarized authorization form or copies of his driver’s license. Further, he makes no argument 13 why he should not be ordered to appear for deposition. Thus, the Court will grant Defendant’s 14 request and order Plaintiff Brenda to produce the requested documents and appear for deposition. 15 The Court cautions Plaintiff that his failure to make himself available for deposition in 16 violation of this Order may be grounds for sanctions, including evidentiary sanctions (see Lanier 17 v. San Joaquin Valley Officials Ass’n, No. 1:14-cv-01938-EPG, 2016 WL 4764669, at *8 (E.D. 18 Cal. Sept. 12, 2016)), and dismissal of his action. E.g., Jones v. Frazesn, No. 2:09-cv-02758 19 RCT, 2009 WL 3254905, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2009) (dismissing action upon plaintiff’s failure 20 to appear for continued deposition; Lugo v. Sham, No. C00-11-4MMC(JL)(JCS), 2001 WL 21 348984, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2001) (same). 22 Conclusion and Order 23 For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 24 1. Defendant’s filing construed as an unopposed motion to compel (Doc. 61) is 25 GRANTED; 26 2. Plaintiff shall produce a copy of his driver’s license and a notarized version of his 27 signed and executed CDC authorization form no later than February 19, 2024; and 1 3. Plaintiff shall appear for and complete his deposition no later than February 19, 2024. 2 | ITIS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 2, 2024 | hr 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 1:22-cv-00701
Filed Date: 2/2/2024
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/31/2024