Clements

Clements v. T-Mobile USA, Inc

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 4, 20245:22-cv-07512California2,427 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

21 Plaintiff’s Sanctions Motion arises out of T-Mobile’s discovery responses served on 22 August 28, 2023 (“August Responses”) and supplemental responses served on October 17, 2023 23 (“October Responses”). Plaintiff complains that the August Responses are incomplete and 24 unverified; T-Mobile failed to meet and confer regarding the August Responses; T-Mobile delayed 25 supplementing its responses until October 17, 2023; and the October Responses are unverified. 26 Plaintiff did not move to compel further discovery responses from T-Mobile but filed this 27 Sanctions Motion on January 3, 2024. Plaintiff now asserts that T-Mobile’s discovery delay 1 prevented him from preparing an opposition to T-Mobile’s motion to compel arbitration and 2 dismiss (“Motion re Arbitration;” Dkt. 37) by the filing deadline of November 15, 2023. 3 Plaintiff’s sanctions Motion seeks a wide range of relief against T-Mobile, including deeming 4 allegations in the First Amended Complaint admitted, precluding defenses, and payment of 5 expenses. Plaintiff also seeks to compel verified responses and requests additional time to oppose 6 T-Mobile’s Motion re Arbitration. …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.