Marti v. Padilla, et al

Filing 249

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 219 , 225 Motions for Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/20/2012. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALEX LAMOTA MARTI,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS
(Docs. 219, 225.)

F. PADILLA, et al.,

15

1:07-cv-00066-LJO-GSA-PC

Defendants.
_____________________________/

16
17

Alex Lamota Marti (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

18

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 20, 2011 and December 6, 2011,

19

Plaintiff filed motions for the imposition of sanctions upon Defendants for their failure to timely

20

comply with the court’s order of August 31, 2011, which granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel

21

and required Defendants to serve discovery responses upon Plaintiff. (Docs. 219, 225.)

22

I.

23

RULE 37 - SANCTIONS
Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a party fails to obey an

24

order to provide or permit discovery, the court may issue further just orders, which may include the

25

imposition of sanctions upon the disobedient party, including dismissal of the action or proceeding in

26

whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). “[T]he court must order the disobedient party, the

27

attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused

28

1

1

by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of

2

expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

3

II.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

4

In Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions, filed on October 20, 2012, Plaintiff argues that the

5

court should impose sanctions on Defendants because they failed to serve discovery responses on

6

Plaintiff within the forty-five-day deadline established by the court’s order of August 31, 2011.

7

Plaintiff requests sanctions including default judgment and the denial of Defendants’ pending motion

8

for summary judgment. Plaintiff asserts that the deadline established by the court expired, and

9

Plaintiff had not been served with any discovery responses by the Defendants as required by the

10

court’s order.

11

Discussion

12

Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions is moot because Defendants were granted an extension

13

of time in which to serve the discovery responses. On November 4, 2011, the court entered an order

14

which excused Defendants from serving the discovery responses until November 23, 2011. (Doc.

15

222.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions, filed on October 20, 2012, is moot and shall

16

be denied.

17

III.

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

18

On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second motion for sanctions. (Doc. 225.) Defendants

19

filed an opposition to the motion on December 23, 2011, and Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition

20

on January 9, 2012. (Docs. 227, 229.)

21

In the second motion for sanctions, Plaintiff argues that the court should impose sanctions on

22

Defendants because they failed to serve discovery responses on Plaintiff within the deadline of

23

November 23, 2011 established by the court’s order of November 4, 2011. Plaintiff requests

24

sanctions including default judgment and the denial of Defendants’ pending motion for summary

25

judgment. Plaintiff asserts that as of December 4, 2011, he had not received any of the discovery

26

responses which Defendants were required to serve upon Plaintiff by November 23, 2011.

27

///

28

2

1

In response, Defendants assert that they timely complied with the court’s November 4, 2011

2

order which granted them an extension of time until November 23, 2011 to comply with the court’s

3

order of August 31, 2011. Defendants submit evidence that on November 22, 2011, they served

4

Plaintiff with a further response to his interrogatories and copies of Plaintiff’s Detention/Segregation

5

Record, as required by the court. (Declaration of John Riches II, Doc. 227 at 3 ¶¶2, 3.) Defendants

6

attached copies of all of the referenced discovery responses as exhibits to their opposition. (Id. at

7

Exh. A.)

8

In reply, Plaintiff declares under penalty of perjury that he did not receive any of Defendants’

9

discovery responses until he received Defendants’ December 23, 2011 opposition to his second

10

motion for sanctions, with the discovery responses attached as exhibits. (Declaration of Alex L.

11

Marti, Doc. 229 at 6 ¶7.) Plaintiff also submits a copy of the prison’s incoming mail record from

12

May 24, 2011 until December 22, 2011, as evidence that there is no record that he received any mail

13

from Defendants during the relevant time period. (Id. at Exh. A.)

14

Discussion

15

Defendants’ evidence demonstrates that on November 22, 2011, they served the required

16

discovery responses on Plaintiff by mail, and Plaintiff’s evidence shows that he did not timely

17

receive the responses from Defendants. In this instance, the court finds no cause to doubt the

18

credibility of either party. Thus, it appears most likely that the mail from Defendants to Plaintiff was

19

misdelivered, through no fault of Defendants, and never arrived at its destination. Under these facts,

20

the court cannot find that Defendants failed to obey the court’s order requiring them to serve

21

discovery responses upon Plaintiff by November 23, 2011. Plaintiff acknowledges that he is now in

22

receipt of the discovery responses, albeit later than expected, and the court finds no prejudice to

23

Plaintiff caused by the delay. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions, and Plaintiff’s second

24

motion for sanctions shall be denied.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

3

1

IV.

2
3

CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions,

filed on October 20, 2011 and December 6, 2011, are DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:
6i0kij

March 20, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4