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)

Download PDF
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?