Case Information
*1 Case 5:06-cv-06142-JF Document 18 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: C- 06-6142 JF PVT
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND VACATING HEARING DATE Plaintiff,
v.
SIZZLER USA RESTAURANTS, INC.,
__________________________________ Defendants.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“The EEOC”) filed this Title VII public enforcement action on behalf of Patricia Huizache (“Huizache”), a former employee of Defendant Sizzler USA Restaurants, Inc. (“Defendant”). [1] Huizache filed a successful motion to intervene to in this action. Huizache claims to be a victim of sex and national origin discrimination causing her constructive termination from Defendant’s Redwood City restaurant.
The EEOC personally served Defense counsel Glen Mertens at the CMC conference on January 12, 2007 with a set of Interrogatories and a set of Requests for Production of Documents. (Dixon Decl. ¶ 2.). The two Interrogatories sought the names, contact information, and job titles of employees at the Redwood City Sizzler. (Dixon Decl. Exh.A). The eleven *2 Case 5:06-cv-06142-JF Document 18 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 2 Requests for Production of Documents sought documents relating to: policies on discrimination, training about discrimination policies and complaint procedures, the investigation of Huizache’s complaint, the personnel files of Huizache and the alleged harasser, Daniel Viera , other complaints about Viera, and investigations into other complaints of sexual or national origin discrimination at the Redwood city restaurant during Viera’s employment. (Dixon Decl. Exh. B.) Most the information sought had been identified by defendants as relevant in its Initial Disclosures. (Dixon Decl. Exh. C.) Defendant failed to respond in any way. The EEOC attempted many times to meet and confer, but received no response from Defense counsel. (Dixon Decl. ¶¶ 5-10, Exhs. D-F)
On March 9, 2007, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The hearing date was set for April 17, 2007, making an opposition due by March 27, 2007. As of April 10, 2007, no Opposition was filed by Defendant. [2] In light of Defendant’s failure to respond to the motion to compel discovery, a hearing is not necessary to resolve this motion. The discovery sought is relevant and not unduly burdensome.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The EEOC’s motion to compel discovery is granted in full and Defendant
is ordered to produce all requested discovery no later than April 20, 2007 and
2. The April 17, 2007 hearing date for the Motion to Compel Discovery is
VACATED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2007
____________________________ PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge
[1] The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying the present motion. O RDER , page 1
[2] The EEOC did not file a Reply Brief. Although the local rules do not require a reply brief, better practice would be to file a Reply Brief to inform the Court that the status of the motion remains unchanged. O RDER , page 2