Porter v. Winter

Filing 85

Discovery ORDER re 69 Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 2/24/2013. (Figueroa, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

RONALD L. PORTER,

10

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00880-AWI-SMS

Plaintiff,
DISCOVERY ORDER

11
12

v.
RAY MABUS, Secretary,
Department of the Navy,

13

(Doc. 69)
Defendant.

14

/

15
Plaintiff, Ronald Porter, appearing pro se, moves for an order compelling Defendant to
16
provide discovery and for sanctions against Defendant for failure to provide discovery. Although
17
Defendant reported that it had responded to every discovery request before its filing of the joint
18
statement of discovery dispute (Doc. 72), filed November 28, 2012, the motion to compel sets
19
forth a laundry list of deficiencies in Defendant’s responses. Having carefully reviewed materials
20
submitted in conjunction with the motion, the case record, and applicable law, the Court finds
21
that Plaintiff’s discovery requests exceeded the scope of the claim, that Plaintiff’s objections to
22
Defendant’s responses were misplaced, and that the motion to compel discovery was untimely
23
and failed to comply with the provisions of the Court Rules and the scheduling order. As a
24
result, the Court denies the motion to compel discovery and impose sanctions.
25
I.

Plaintiff Disregarded the Scheduling Order

26
The scheduling order in this case (Doc. 65) provided for discovery to end on November 2,
27
2012. It further ordered:
28
1

1

Regarding discovery disputes, no written discovery motions shall be filed
without the prior approval of the assigned Magistrate Judge. A party with a
discovery dispute must first confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort
to resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If that good faith effort is
unsuccessful, the moving party shall then seek a prompt hearing with the assigned
Magistrate Judge by telephone or in person.

2
3
4

Doc. 65 at 12.
5
Disregarding these provisions, Plaintiff filed a written motion to compel discovery on
6
November 13, 2012, eleven days after the close of discovery. He neither requested a hearing this
7
the assigned Magistrate Judge nor secured her permission to file a written motion. As such, the
8
motion is procedurally improper.
9
Ii.

Plaintiff Disregarded the Scope of Discovery

10
Rule 26 provides that a plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery regarding any
11
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to the opposing party’s defense. F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
12
Nonetheless, the Court is responsible for regulating the breadth of contentious or sweeping
13
discovery. Adv. Comm. Notes to 2000 Amendment to F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Discovery must
14
focus on the actual claims and defenses in the action. Id.
15
The sole issue in this case is whether the Equal Opportunity Commission abused its
16
discretion in its award of attorneys’ fees and cost to Plaintiff. Title VII authorizes prevailing
17
parties to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, including amounts attributable to proceedings
18
before administrative proceedings. 42 U.S.C. § 1988; see Webb v. Board of Educ. of Dyer
19
County, Tenn., 471 U.S. 234, 235-36 (1985). Determination of a fee award is a discretionary
20
matter. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The petitioner bears the burden of
21
proving his entitlement to the requested fee. Webb, 471 U.S. at 244. A court’s consideration of a
22
fee petition “‘should not result in a second major litigation.’” Id. at 244 n. 20, quoting Hensley,
23
461 U.S. at 437. Parties are properly admonished “to limit adversary hostilities and to avoid
24
excessive cross-examination of fee witnesses.” Webb, 471 U.S. at 244, n. 20.
25
As a reviewing court, this Court’s task is to determine whether the EEOC abused its
26
discretion in ordering a fee award to Plaintiff that was substantially less than the fees and costs he
27
had claimed. It must presume that the agency’s action was valid and must affirm the agency
28
2

1

action if it had a reasonable basis. Kern County Farm Bureau v. Allen, 450 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th

2

Cir. 2006). A court may only set aside a final agency action, such as the fee award challenged

3

here, if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the

4

law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A). Its evaluation is based on the complete record of the action below

5

or those parts of the record cited by a party. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2). Since the District Court’s

6

determination relies on the record below, very little discovery, if any, is necessary when a

7

prevailing party appeals an agency award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff seeks to compel

8

sweeping and contentious discovery far beyond the scope of this Court’s review of the EEOC

9

order for fees and costs.

10

III.

11

Conclusion and Order
Because Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery was procedurally improper and sought

12

production of discovery far beyond the scope of this action, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

13

to compel discovery.

14

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of this order.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:
icido3

February 24, 2013

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3