The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lindsay, Magistrate Judge:
Before the court is the defendant's letter application dated September 22, 2012, seeking to compel the pro se plaintiff to (1) comply with the court's Order, dated May 30, 2012, which directed plaintiff to "review her personal cellular phone and e-mail account and advise counsel whether they contain anything pertinent to the issues in the case," and (2) produce to defense counsel a true and correct copy of the documents that plaintiff brought to her deposition that were marked Exhibits 6, 9 and 12. The plaintiff opposes the application. Defendant's motion is granted, in part.
In her opposition, plaintiff states that in "preparation" for her subsequent deposition on July 9, 2012, she "did indeed review her e-mail accounts as well as her cellular records and reported the results of that review at the deposition" that they did not contain anything pertinent to the case. A review of her testimony at that deposition, however, indicates that plaintiff could not attest that the records she had represented her complete personal cell phone records for the period September 15, 2008 to September 15, 2010 or that she had conducted a thorough and diligent search of her cellular telephone records:
Q: You said you glanced over [the personal cellular phone numbers] when you scanned over them?
Q: This point -- I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If I understand you correctly, you can't tell me, as you sit here today at the deposition, whether you even have a complete set of records for that time period, September 2008 to April 2009; true?
A: I'm not sure. I need to double check at home.
Q: Did you sit down with your cell phone and any printouts and go through them for
A: No. Can I ask you a question? Do you know long this is going to take? How many hours we're going to be?
Q: As I understand it, your efforts at complying with the Court regarding review of the cell phone records essentially meant scanning some set of documents that you have at home, you're not sure if it's the entirety of the time you worked at Ustrive and kind of doing it from memory; is that a fair way of putting it? A: Yes.
Q: Just to make this as simple as possible, in the records that you found there were records of calls made to and received from Ustrive offices that's in the documents?
(Anderson Letter, dated September 22, 2012, Ex. A, at 15, 24-26.) Likewise, a review of plaintiff's deposition testimony on July 9, 2012 indicates that she conducted only a cursory review ...