Moore v. City of Ceres et al

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. 19 ), Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/22/2012. (Arellano, S.)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
MICHAEL C. MOORE,
8
9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11
CITY OF CERES, et. al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1: 11-CV-1414 AWI-GSA

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL

(Document 19)

15
16 I.

INTRODUCTION

17

On May 8, 2012, Defendants, City of Ceres, Deputy Chief of Police Mike Borges, and K.

18 Kitcher, et. al. (hereinafter “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel based on Michael Moore’s
19 (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) failure to provide initial disclosures. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff did not file an
20 opposition to the motion. The matter is set for hearing on May 25, 2010 at 9:30 am.1 The Court
21 finds that the matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(c)
22 and (g) and the hearing is vacated. Upon consideration of the pleadings, Defendants’ Motion to
23 Compel is GRANTED.
24 ///
25
26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 251(e) when there has been a complete and total failure to respond to a discovery
request or order, the aggrieved party may bring a motion for relief withing fourteen (14) days notice. The responding
party shall file a response to the motion not later than seven (7) days before the hearing date. The moving party may
file and serve a reply thereto not less than two (2) court days before the hearing date. Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion was properly noticed.

1

1 II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2

On July 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants in the Stanislaus County

3 Superior Court of California (Case No. 667705). Defendants removed this action on August 22,
4 2009. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
5 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
6

On February 23, 2012, this Court issued a scheduling order requiring that the parties

7 exchange initial disclosures by March 22, 2012. (Doc. 18). The Court also set the non-expert
8 discovery deadline for March 18, 2013. Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel on May 8,
9 2012, so the motion is timely filed.
10 III.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL

11

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not served his initial disclosures despite the fact that

12 initial disclosures were due March 22, 2012. On April 24, 2012, Defendants’ counsel sent
13 Plaintiff’s counsel a letter notifying him of the lack of compliance and requested that the initial
14 disclosures be made no later than April 30, 2012. Declaration of John Whitefleet, Esq. dated
15 March 22, 2010 at ¶¶ 4-6 and attached Exhibit A (Doc. 19-2). On May 22, 2012, Defendants
16 notified the Court that no initial disclosures were made. (Doc. 23). Defendants requests that the
17 Court order that Plaintiff produce his initial disclosures within ten days, and also that Plaintiff pay
18 Defendants’ attorneys fees for the filing of this motion in the amount of $472.50.
19
IV.

DISCUSSION

20
Fed. R. Civ. P 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) requires that parties provide initial disclosures regarding
21
litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv). When a party fails to do so, the court may order
22
payment of reasonable expenses including attorney’s fees caused by the failure. Fec. R. Civ. P. 37
23
(c). Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide initial disclosures as ordered and has not responded to
24
Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, Defendants request that Plaintiff be ordered to produce his
25
initial disclosures is granted. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Defendants’ request for
26
attorneys fees and finds that this request is reasonable.
27
///
28
2

1 V.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the above, Defendants’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED :

3

1.

4

Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve his initial disclosures on Defendants within ten
(10) days after service of this order;

5

2.

6

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay Defendants a total of $472.50.00 within thirty (30)
days after service of this order; and

7

3.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of additional

8

sanctions including, but not limited to, additional monetary sanctions, the

9

exclusion of evidence at the time of trial, or dismissal of this case.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
6i0kij

May 22, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3