Ramirez v. County

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING 19 Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) for Failure to Serve Answers to Interrogatories. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/8/2012. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

ROSA PATRICIA RAMIREZ,

12

Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

vs.
MERCED COUNTY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11cv0531 AWI DLB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 37(d) FOR
FAILURE TO SERVE ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES
(Doc. 19)

On October 22, 2012, Defendant Merced County (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion
for sanctions against Plaintiff Rosa Patricia Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) for failure to provide
interrogatory responses. Plaintiff did not file an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 251(e).
Accordingly, the Court deemed the matter suitable for decision without oral argument and

22

vacated the hearing scheduled for November 9, 2012. Having considered the moving papers,

23

Defendant’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED.

24
25
26

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) on March 27, 2011. She premises her action on Defendant’s alleged failure to make

27
28

1

1

reasonable accommodations for her disability and “medically” terminating her effective March

2
3
4
5
6
7

27, 2009. Complaint, ¶ 20. Defendant answered the complaint on July 6, 2011.
On August 26, 2011, the Court issued a Scheduling Order, which set the non-expert
discovery deadline for on June 6, 2012, and the expert discovery deadline for September 28,
2012. Doc. 16.
On May 2, 2012, Defendant served Plaintiff with three special interrogatories seeking the

8

following: (1) witnesses with “personal knowledge of each incident of refusal to reasonably

9

accommodate;” (2) witnesses with “personal knowledge that, with reasonable accommodation,

10

[Plaintiff]could perform the essential functions of a Staff Services Analyst II with Merced

11

County;” and (3) witnesses with “personal knowledge of [Plaintiff’s] mental anguish and pain

12

and suffering as a result of defendant’s actions.” Exhibit A to Declaration of Roger S. Matzkind

13
14
15

(“Matzkind Dec.”). Plaintiff did not respond to these interrogatories.
On June 11, 2012, after the non-expert discovery deadline, defense counsel faxed a letter
to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting a response to the interrogatories by June 18, 2012. Exhibit B to

16
17
18
19

Matzkind Dec. Plaintiff did not respond to the letter.
On July 3, 2012, defense counsel faxed another letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting
answers to the interrogatories or a time to contact the Magistrate Judge to discuss the matter.

20

Exhibit C to Matzkind Dec. In response, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an e-mail to Stefanie Powell,

21

legal assistant to defense counsel, stating that there was no discovery dispute and that responses

22

should be provided by July 17, 2012. Exhibit A to the Declaration of Stefanie Powell. However,

23

Plaintiff did not provide responses by July 17, 2012.

24
25
26

On July 24, 2012, defense counsel faxed and mailed another letter to Plaintiff’s counsel
requesting answers or a time to contact the Magistrate Judge to discuss the matter. Exhibit D to
Matzkind Dec. Plaintiff did not respond to the letter.

27
28

2

1

On October 15, 2012, defense counsel sent another letter to Plaintiff’s counsel regarding

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and again requested answers to the interrogatories or
a time to contact the Magistrate Judge to discuss the matter. Exhibit E to Matzkind Dec.
Plaintiff did not respond to the letter.
Due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the special interrogatories, Defendant filed the
present motion for sanctions. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) authorizes the Court to impose sanctions for a

10

party’s failure to serve answers, objections or written responses to interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P

11

37(d)(1)(A)(ii). Here, Plaintiff did not respond to the special interrogatories. Defendant

12
13
14
15

therefore requests that Plaintiff be prohibited from offering the testimony of any witness falling
within the categories of witnesses sought by the special interrogatories. Rule 37 permits such an
exclusionary sanction, stating that a disobedient party may be prohibited “from introducing
designated matters in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) and (d)(3). As Plaintiff has not

16
17
18
19

opposed the request and has not provided any evidence that the failure to respond should be
excused, the Court finds that imposition of sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff will be prohibited
from presenting testimony from any witnesses falling within the categories of witnesses sought

20

by special interrogatories. However, this prohibition does not include those witnesses, if any,

21

that were otherwise disclosed to Defendant before conclusion of the discovery deadlines.

22

In addition to this sanction, Rule 37 provides that the Court “must require the party

23

failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including

24

attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other

25

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). There is no

26

evidence before the Court to suggest that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the special

27

interrogatories was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses

28

3

1

unjust. Accordingly, Plaintiff and her counsel shall be required to pay Defendant’s reasonable

2
3
4

expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure to respond. In order to award such
fees, Defendant shall be required to file a declaration detailing the expenses incurred.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

5
6

For the reasons stated, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

7

1. Defendant’s motion for sanctions for failure to serve answers to interrogatories is
GRANTED;

8
9

2. Plaintiff SHALL BE PROHIBITED from presenting testimony from any witnesses

10

falling within the categories of witnesses sought by the special interrogatories. This

11

prohibition shall not include those witnesses, if any, that have otherwise been

12

disclosed to Defendant during discovery;

13

3. Plaintiff and her counsel SHALL PAY Defendant’s reasonable expenses, including

14

attorney’s fees, caused by the failure to respond; and

15

4. Defendant SHALL FILE a declaration detailing the expenses incurred within seven
16

(7) days after service of this order

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

21

/s/ Dennis

November 8, 2012

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

DEAC_Signature-END:

23

3b142a

24
25
26
27
28

4