Hill v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 43

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY re 40 AND ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SHE SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED FOR FAILING TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUEST signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/29/2015. (Show Cause Response due by 5/14/2015). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RONNELL HILL,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01071-LJO-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF No. 40)

v.
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SHE SHOULD NOT
BE SANCTIONED FOR FAILING TO
RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUEST
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

20

First Amendment access to courts claim against Defendant Peterson. (ECF No. 10.)

21

On August 25, 2014, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting

22

April 25, 2015 as the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 33.) The order provided that

23

responses to written discovery requests were due within forty five days after the request

24

was first served.

25
26
27
28

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 6, 2015 motion to compel discovery (ECF No.
40.) Defendant filed no opposition. The matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

1

Plaintiff states that he submitted interrogatories to Defendant on January 20,

2

2015, but received no response. Documents attached to Plaintiff’s motion support this

3

contention. Plaintiff contends he wrote defense counsel on March 31, 2015, in an

4

attempt to resolve the issue, but again received no response.

5

In light of Defendant’s failure to respond to the motion, the Court must conclude

6

that Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, in violation of the discovery

7

order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b). Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery

8

will be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii).

9

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit sanctions to be imposed where a

10

party fails to answer interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii). Such sanctions

11

include (i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be

12

taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii)

13

prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or

14

defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in

15

whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing

16

the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the

17

disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order

18

except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).

19

Additionally, Defendant may be required to pay reasonable expenses caused by her

20

failure to respond. Id. The Court will order Defendant to show cause why she should not

21

be subjected to any such sanctions.

22

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

23

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED;

24

2. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories within fourteen (14)

25

days of the date of this order; and

26
27
28
2

1

3. Defendant shall, within fourteen (14) days of this order, show cause why

2

she should not be sanctioned for failing to respond to Plaintiff’s

3

interrogatories.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 29, 2015

/s/

7

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3