LEE v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Case No. 16-cv-00983-VC(JSC).

ALIK LEE, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Alik Lee, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

California Public Utilities Commission, Defendant, represented by Suzanne Solomon , Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Jennifer Perkell , Office of the Attorney General & Juliana V. Kresse , Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.


ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S THIRD MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 157

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Alik Yusef Lee filed this Title VII employment discrimination action against his former employer, the California Public Utilities Commission. On June 6, 2017, the district court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and issued judgment in its favor. (Dkt. Nos. 169 & 170.) Defendant's third motion for sanctions remains pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 157.) Defendant contends that sanctions are warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's February 10, 2017 discovery order in three ways: (1) failing to provide responsive documents, (2) failing to pay previously ordered sanctions, and (3) continuing to use Jose Ruiz, his self-titled "communications proxy," who is not an attorney, to communicate with counsel. Defendant seeks an order precluding Plaintiff from presenting evidence of his alleged lost wages at trial and awarding Defendant its attorneys' fees for preparing the motion for sanctions in the amount of $1,320.00.

Given the district court's grant of summary judgment in Defendant's favor, the request for evidence preclusion sanctions is moot; however, the request for monetary sanctions is not. Plaintiff was previously ordered to pay $500 in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) based on his flagrant disregard of the discovery rules. (Dkt. No. 140.) Plaintiff has failed to pay those court ordered sanctions and continued to disregard this Court's orders to provide Defendant with discovery. Plaintiff does not deny that he failed to provide the discovery ordered by the Court or pay the Court ordered sanction. (Dkt. No. 160.)

Given Plaintiff's continued failure to comply with his discovery obligations and this Court's orders, Defendant's motion for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant $1,320 for its reasonable expenses incurred in filing yet another motion for sanctions. Plaintiff shall remit this amount and the previously ordered $500 in sanctions (if not already paid) to Defendant within 30 days of this Order.

This Order terminates Docket No. 157.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases