Pogue v. Dr. Igbanosa et al
Filing
123
ORDER, signed by District Judge G. Murray Snow on 10/12/11: Motion for Sanctions 104 is DENIED. (Hellings, J)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
Leon H. Pogue,
Plaintiff,
10
11
vs.
12
Dr. Igbanosa, et. Al., ,
13
Defendant.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:07cv-01577-GMS
ORDER
15
16
17
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Sanctions,
Doc. 104.
18
Plaintiff basically failed to engage in any discovery for a period of years in this case.
19
Once Plaintiff obtained counsel, counsel asked that the discovery period be extended so that
20
he could conduct basic discovery on Plaintiff’s claims. The Motion was granted to a limited
21
extent, and Plaintiff served his Request for Production of Documents on Defendants on
22
February 28, 2011. Plaintiff received his initial Responses on April 4. He thereafter
23
requested assurances from the Defendants that they had searched not only their work files
24
but their own personal files (both electronic and hard copy) for any documents responsive
25
to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Although Plaintiff received two supplemental responses, he still
26
alleges that he has no adequate assurances that Defendants personal files have been searched
27
for material responsive to his Request for Production
28
Plaintiff previously requested authorization to move for sanctions based on the
1
assertion that Defendants had failed to take adequate steps once they were apprised of this
2
litigation to preserve documents. That motion was denied. Plaintiff was authorized,
3
however, to file a motion seeking sanctions with respect to the failure of some of the
4
individual Defendants to sufficiently respond to Plaintiff’s request for production. The
5
motion was authorized with respect to individual Defendants Diep, Ahlin, Price and
6
Martinez.
7
In his motion, Plaintiff principally argues that sanctions are merited by the failure of
8
Defense counsel to provide Plaintiff’s counsel with adequate assurances that Defendants
9
searched not only their office or business files and records but their own personal files to
10
respond to the Requests for Production. Plaintiff requests that, as sanctions for this alleged
11
failure Defendants be: (1) “precluded from relying on the absence of documents as a basis
12
for arguing on summary judgment that Plaintiff has failed to show genuine issues of disputed
13
fact” regarding their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; and (2) Defendants
14
(but not Plaintiff) are precluded from relying on or entering into evidence documents
15
produced after June 13.
16
Plaintiff’s motion is denied in its entirety. After having reviewed the motion and its
17
supporting materials together with the response and its supporting materials, the Court is of
18
the view that all possibly responsive files have been searched and Plaintiff has received all
19
responsive documents. Further, Plaintiff has not satisfied this Court that any possible
20
relevant or responsive document was deleted or destroyed by any of the individual
21
Defendants. Therefore, in the Court’s judgment, no sanctions are indicated and the motion
22
for sanctions is denied in its entirety. See, e.g., Tri-County motors, inc. v. American Suzuki
23
Motor Corp., 301 Fed. Appx. 11, 14 2008 WL 5063291 (2nd Cir. 2008) (lack of evidence
24
that the allegedly missing e-mails actually existed or were relevant to the litigation” justified
25
the Court for failing to impose sanctions), Concord Boat Corp. V. Brunswick Corp., 1997
26
WL 33352759 (E.D. Ark. 1997) (holding no adverse inference instruction appropriate where
27
there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial of the allegedly unfavorable e-mails.).
28
-2-
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 104).
2
DATED this 12th day of October, 2011.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?