Caronda Graham et al v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 93

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting in part 73 defendants Motion for Attorney Fees.Defendants shall recover from Plaintiffs and their counsel fees in the amount of $775.00. (lc). Modified on 10/30/2012 (lc).

1
2
3

O

4

CLOSED

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

CARONDA GRAHAM, individually
and as successor-ininterest; SHAR'RHONDA DAVIS,
individually and as
successor-in-interest; and
DEBORAH JEFFERY,
individually,

15

Plaintiffs,

16
17
18

v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
DEPUTY GRIMES; DEPUTY
RANIAG; DEPUTY AUSTIN,
DEPUTY GRIFFITH,

19
20

Defendants.
___________________________

21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 10-05059 DDP (Ex)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS FEES IN PART

[Dkt. No. 73]

Presently before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Attorney

22

Fees.

23

oral argument, the court grants the motion in part and adopts the

24

following order.

25

I.

26

Having considered the submissions of the parties and heard

Background
This action arises from the death of Raynard Davis (“Davis”)

27

following an encounter with Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies,

28

during which Davis was tased twice in the chest.

After determining

1

that there were no triable issues of fact, this court granted

2

summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

3

recover certain fees incurred as a result of Plaintiffs’ allegedly

4

improper failures to adequately respond to Defendants’ requests for

5

admission.

6

II.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Defendants now seek to

Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(2) provides in relevant

part:
If a party fails to admit ... the truth of any matter as
requested under Rule 36, and if the party requesting the
admissions thereafter proves ... the truth of the matter,
the requesting party may apply to the court for an order
requiring the other party to pay the reasonable expenses
incurred in making that proof, including reasonable
attorney’s fees. The court shall make the order unless it
finds that (A) the request was held objectionable
pursuant to Rule 36(a), or (B) the admission sought was
of no substantial importance, or (C) the party failing to
admit had reasonable ground to believe that the party
might prevail on the matter, or (D) there was other good
reason for the failure to admit.

16

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(2); see also Marchand v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 22

17

F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 1994).

18

motions both post-trial and following the grant of summary judgment

19

in favor of a requesting party.

20

Burlington Air Express, Inc., 183 F.R.D. 545 (N.D. Cal. 1998);

21

Keithley v. The Home Store.com, Inc., No. C-03-04447 SI, 2008 WL

22

2024977 at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2008); Mane v. Tri-City Healthcare

23

Dist., No. 05cv397-WQH, 2007 WL 935624 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2007);

24

Mut. Serv. Ins. Co. v. Frit Inds., Inc., 358 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir.

25

2004); Am. Recovery Corp. v. Looper, Reed, Mark & McGraw, Inc., 164

26

F.3d 623 (4th Cir. 1998); Warren Pub. v. Spurlock, 645 F.Supp.2d

27

402, 445 (E.D. Pa. 2009);

Courts regularly entertain Rule 37

See, e.g., Read-Rite Corp. V.

Long v. Howard, 561 F.Supp.2d 85, 93

28
2

1

(D.D.C. 2008); Firestone v. Hawker Beechcraft Int’l Serv. Co., No.

2

10-1404-JWL, 2012 WL 899270 (D. Kan. Mar. 16, 2012).

3

In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) requires

4

counsel to certify that a particular discovery response is

5

consistent with the law and rules of civil procedure, proper, and

6

reasonable.

7

this rule may result in an order requiring a party or counsel to

8

pay the reasonable expenses caused by the violation, including

9

fees.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B).

Unjustified violation of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3); see also Appling v. State Farm

10

Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 785-86 (9th Cir. 2003).

11

III. Discussion

12

Defendants seek their expenses for twenty-six requests for

13

admission that, Defendants argue, Plaintiffs unjustifiably refused

14

to admit, and which were ultimately proven.

15

Defendants served Plaintiffs with requests for admission on

16

April 22, 2011, well after the filing of the complaint but before

17

the taking of any depositions.

18

granting summary judgment, excessive forces cases such as this one,

19

where a key witness (in this case, Decedent) is unavailable,

20

sometimes turn on the credibility of witness-defendants.

21

discussed more fully on the record, the majority of the requests at

22

issue here inquired not after objective facts, but rather after

23

contentious, relatively subjective matters.

24

Admission No. 20: “Admit that . . . [Decedent] refused to comply

25

with the instructions of . . . Deputies.”) Given the early stage of

26

the proceedings and the nature of the suit and relevant

27

information, Plaintiffs had reasonable grounds to believe they

As explained in this court’s Order

28
3

As

(e.g. Request for

1

would prevail and good reason to deny the majority of the requests

2

at issue here.

3

Certain requests for admission, however, more properly focused

4

their inquiry on discrete, objective matters that should not have

5

been denied.

6

Plaintiffs to admit that a specific laboratory test obtained at

7

Antelope Valley Hospital was positive for the presence of alcohol.

8

Requests 54, 55, and 56 sought identical admissions with respect to

9

cocaine, cannabis, and phencyclidine.

Request for Admission No. 52, for example, asked

Request 61 asked Plaintiffs

10

to admit that the coroner’s report concluded that Decedent died as

11

a result of “Consequences of Drug Induced Excited Delirium.”

12

In response to each of these five requests, Plaintiffs

13

responded with a boilerplate, meritless objection that the request

14

was compound, vague, and ambiguous.

15

that discovery was ongoing, and that they lacked sufficient

16

information on which to either admit or deny the request for

17

admission.

18

Plaintiffs submitted their responses, they were already in

19

possession of the autopsy report, police reports, and Decedent’s

20

hospital records.

21

Plaintiffs possessed sufficient information to respond to these

22

five very narrow, objective requests for admission.

Plaintiffs further objected

This objection too was unjustified.

At the time

As Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged at trial,

23

Having concluded that Plaintiffs had no justification for

24

failing to make the five admissions described above, the court must

25

grant Defendants’ requests for the reasonable expenses incurred in

26

proving the matters that should have been admitted.

27

P. 37(c)(2).

28

were fairly straightforward, and did not require extraordinary

Fed. R. Civ.

As described above, Requests 52, 54, 55, 56 and 61

4

1

proof.

2

expended one hour of effort proving each of the five improperly

3

denied Requests.

4

$155.00 per hour for attorneys’ fees reasonable.

5

Plaintiffs and their counsel are ordered to reimburse Defendants

6

the $775.00 reasonably expended as a result of Plaintiffs’

7

unjustified failure to admit to the five issues discussed herein.

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g).

9

IV.

10

The court concludes that Defendants’ counsel reasonably

The court finds Defendants’ requested rate of
Accordingly,

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ fee motion is

11

GRANTED in part.

Defendants shall recover from Plaintiffs and

12

their counsel fees in the amount of $775.00

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: October 30, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5