Stage Nine Design, LLC v. Rock-It Cargo, LLC

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ----oo0oo---- STAGE NINE DESIGN, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00722 WBS AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT VALUED FREIGHT SERVICES LLC’S VALUED FREIGHT SERVICES, LLC; MOTION TO DISMISS SPN CARGO, INC.; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, 16 Defendants.

18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Defendant Valued Freight Services moves to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based upon plaintiff’s delay in responding to discovery and the alleged incompleteness and disorganization of plaintiff’s responses.

23 (Docket No. 53.)

24 Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is “to be imposed only in extreme circumstances.” Raiford v. Pounds, 640 F.2d 944, 945 (9th Cir. 1981).

27 After the court allowed limited written discovery and the deposition of plaintiff’s representative prior to the parties eee eee mE EE OE ISIE INI Om engaging in the court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (Docket No. 51), defendants Valued Freight Services and SPN Cargo requested discovery. After a short delay, plaintiff responded to the requests, but Valued Freight Services’ counsel finds the responses untimely and inadequate. (Def.’s Mot. at 1-2.) While | the court does not condone late compliance with discovery requests absent the agreement of the parties or the court’s granting of an extension of time, the court does not find the delay to be so “extreme” as to warrant dismissal under Rule 10 (bo). See Raiford, 640 F.2d at 945.

11 With regard to Valued Freight Services’ argument that | plaintiff’s responses were incomplete and disorganized, the court | did not specify the manner in which the parties should engage in 14 discovery; rather, the court simply allowed limited discovery.

15 (See Order Referring to VDRP 7 2 (Docket No. 51).) If Valued | Freight Services was dissatisfied with the responses, it was free 17 to make an appropriate discovery motion before the magistrate 18 judge.

19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Value Freight 20 Services’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 53) be, and the same | hereby, is DENIED.! / td . a / | Dated: February 28, 2022 Ph her Ui (oh 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 1 Plaintiff requests to defer scheduling of trial and 27 other deadlines in this matter. (Pl1.’s Opp’n at 7 (Docket No. 56).) The court will consider this and other scheduling requests | at the status conference set for April 25, 2022.