Rangel v. Tilton et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order 36 , 37 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/14/12:Amended Deadline to Amend Pleadings: January 4, 2013; Amended Discovery Cut-Off Date: March 4, 2013; Amended Dispositive Motion Deadline: May 14, 2013. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LEONARDO JOSEPH RANGEL,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

CASE NO. 1:10-cv–01790-AWI-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS AND GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE
SCHEDULING ORDER

JAMES TILTON, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 36, 37)

13

Defendants.

14

Amended Deadline to Amend Pleadings: January
4, 2013

15

Amended Discovery Cut-off Date: March 4,
2013

16
Amended Dispositive Motion Deadline: May 14,
2013

17
18
19

I.

Procedural History

20

Plaintiff Leonardo Joseph Rangel is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the first

22

amended complaint, filed January 9, 2012, against Defendants Latraille and Tabor for excessive

23

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and

24

assault and battery under state law. (ECF No. 17.) Discovery in this action opened on May 4, 2012,

25

and Plaintiff filed a motion to compel on July 30, 2012. (ECF No. 31.) Defendants filed an

26

opposition to the motion to compel on September 24, 2012. On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a

27

motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (ECF No. 36.) On October 16,

28

2012, an order issued denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel and request for sanctions and ordering
1

1

Defendants to file responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests within forty five days. (ECF No. 35.)

2

On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of the discovery deadline and

3

request for sanctions. (ECF No. 37.)

4

II.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions

5

A.

6

Federal courts have broad powers to impose sanctions against parties or counsel for improper

7

conduct in litigation. Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[b]y

8

presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing,

9

submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the

10

person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the

11

circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause

12

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;. . . [and] (3) the factual contentions

13

have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after

14

a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. . . .” Rule 11 imposes an objective

15

standard of reasonableness, which applies to pro se litigants. Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic

16

Communications Enterprises, Inc., 892 F.2d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 1989).

Legal Standard

17

Further, the Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for improper

18

conduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447

19

U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). This includes the “inherent

20

power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct

21

utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.” Anheuser-Busch, Inc. V. Natural

22

Beverage Distrib., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Wyle v. R. J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709

23

F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983)); see Combs v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 927 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir.

24

1991) (“Dismissal is an appropriate sanction for falsifying deposition”).

25

In the Ninth Circuit, sanctions are appropriate only in “extreme circumstances” and where

26

the violation is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Fair Housing of Marin v.

27

Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002.) (quoting United States v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., Inc., 857

28

F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted)). Disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the
2

1

litigant's control meets this standard. Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir.1994).

2

B.

3

Plaintiff brought his motion to compel on the ground that Defendants failed to respond to his

4

to his interrogatories and requests for production of documents and requested the imposition of

5

sanctions. Defendants responded that the only discovery requests that were received from Plaintiff

6

were served on April 3, 2012, prior to the opening of discovery in this action. Plaintiff submits his

7

proof of service dated May 22, 2012, as evidence that he served the discovery requests after the

8

opening of discovery and requests the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11(b). In his motion to

9

extend the discovery deadline, Plaintiff again seeks sanctions and encloses a copy of the log book

10

showing that he mailed documents on May 25, 2012, and copied documents were charged on May

11

31, 2012.

Discussion

12

Defense counsel, an officer of the court, has asserted that she did not receive the discovery

13

requests served on May 22, 2012. The Court is well aware that mail on occasion is misdirected and

14

is not received by the party to whom it is addressed. Plaintiff’s evidence that he mailed documents

15

does not contradict defense counsel’s assertion that she did not receive the discovery requests served

16

after discovery was opened. The Court fails to find conduct that is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or

17

fault of the party,” to justify the imposition of sanctions in this instance. Fair Housing of Marin, 285

18

F.3d at 905. Plaintiff’s motion for the imposition of sanctions is denied.

19

III.

Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order

20

Plaintiff moves to modify the scheduling order to allow him the full amount of time he would

21

have had had discovery just opened in this action. Plaintiff’s discovery requests have now been

22

served on Defendants and the Court has ordered Defendants to respond to the requests within forty

23

five days. When discovery opens in these actions the Court provides eight months to conduct

24

discovery. Defendants’ discovery responses are due on December 3, 2012, and discovery in this

25

action closes on January 4, 2013. (ECF Nos. 25, 35.) While Plaintiff shall be granted an extension

26

of time to conduct follow-up discovery, the Court declines to extend the discovery deadline by the

27

full amount of time requested by Plaintiff. The Court shall partially grant Plaintiff’s request to

28

modify the discovery and scheduling order and the discovery deadlines for the parties shall be
3

1

extended. Accordingly, the deadline to file an amended complaint shall be January 4, 2012; the cut-

2

off date for the completion of all discovery, including filing motions to compel, shall be March 4,

3

2013; and the deadline to file dispositive motions shall be May 14, 2013.

4

VI.

Conclusion and Order

5

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, filed October 15, 2012, is DENIED;

7

2.

Plaintiff’s motion, filed November 13, 2012, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

8

IN PART as follows:

9

a.

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery deadline is GRANTED

10

IN PART;

11

1.

The deadline to amend the pleadings shall be January 4, 2013;

12

2.

The discovery cut-off date for the parties shall be March 4, 2013;

13

3.

The dispositive motion deadline shall be May 14, 2013; and

14
15
16

b.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

November 14, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4