Opinion
No. 2:15-cv-540-MCE-EFB PS
03-03-2016
TIFFANY HILL, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANCORP, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This matter was before the court on February 24, 2016, for hearing on defendant's motion to compel responses to discovery requests and to appear for her deposition. ECF No. 18. Attorney Jennifer Zhao appeared on behalf of defendant. No appearance was made on behalf of plaintiff.
The motion demonstrates that plaintiff failed to provide any responses to defendant's discovery requests and failed to appear for her noticed deposition, and accordingly Local Rule 251(e) applies. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(e) (providing that the requirement that the parties file a Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement does not apply "when there has been a complete and total failure to respond to a discovery request or order."). Local Rule 251(e), required plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion by no later than February 3, 2016. In violation of that rule, plaintiff filed nothing. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion was continued to February 24, 2016, and plaintiff was ordered to show cause, by no later than February 17, 2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. ECF No. 37. That order also directed plaintiff to file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition by February 17, 2016. The order also admonished plaintiff that her failure to do so may result in the granting of defendant's motion and/or a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Although it appears that plaintiff's copy of the order to show cause was returned as undeliverable, plaintiff was properly served at her last address of record. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address is fully effective and it is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of her current address at all times.
Plaintiff did not respond to court's order to show cause. Nor did she comply with the order that she file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion by February 17, 2016. Furthermore, as noted, she failed to appear at the hearing on the motion.
At the hearing, defense counsel represented that in addition to serving plaintiff a copy of the motion at her last known address, counsel also emailed plaintiff a courtesy copy of the motion, but did not receive a response. Counsel indicated that the email address she used was provided by plaintiff's former counsel, who verified that the email address was previously utilized by plaintiff. --------
Plaintiff has failed to respond to duly propounded discovery. She has failed to appear for her duly noticed deposition. She has failed to file any response to the motion to compel. She has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause and failed to comply with court orders and the court's local rules. The record demonstrates that plaintiff has apparently abandoned her case. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for violation of the courts orders, and that the Clerk be directed to close this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings ///// ///// and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: March 3, 2016.
/s/_________
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE