Bronson v. Gallardo et al

Filing 27

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion To Compel And Imposing Sanctions (Document 26 ), ORDER Extending Deadlines, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/19/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

DUANE EDWARD BRONSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
GALLARDO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00113 AWI DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL AND
IMPOSING SANCTIONS
(Document 26)
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES

16
17

Plaintiff Duane Edward Bronson (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se

18

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. The action is proceeding on an Eighth

19

Amendment claim against Defendants Gallardo and Diaz.

20
21
22

On February 11, 2014, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order requiring the
parties to exchange initial disclosures by March 28, 2014. The order also set the discovery cutoff as July 11, 2014, and the deadline to file dispositive motions as September 9, 2014.

23

On March 27, 2014, Defendants filed a statement of compliance with the initial
24
25

disclosure requirement.

26
27
28
1

1
2
3

On May 19, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide his initial
disclosures. Defendants also request the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff did not file an
opposition and the motion is deemed suitable for decision.1

4

DISCUSSION

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), “On notice to other parties and all affected

6
7
8
9

persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure. . . [T]he motion must include a
certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person
failing to make disclosure . . . in an effort to obtain it without court action.”
According to the declaration of David Goodwin, counsel for Defendants, he served

10
11

Plaintiff with initial disclosures on March 27, 2014. The next day, on March 28, 2014, he

12

received a copy of the form Defendants filed with the Court declining Magistrate Judge

13

jurisdiction. A handwritten note was attached to the form setting forth a new address for

14

Plaintiff located in Twentynine Palms, California.2 Goodwin Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. Mr. Goodwin served

15

a second courtesy copy of Defendants’ initial disclosures at Plaintiff’s Twentynine Palms

16

address. Goodwin Decl. ¶ 4.

17
18

On May 1, 2014, Mr. Goodwin sent Plaintiff a letter at both addresses to remind him of
his obligation to serve his initial disclosures. Mr. Goodwin requested that Plaintiff serve the

19

disclosures within two weeks, and warned Plaintiff that if he did not do so, he would file a
20
21
22

motion to compel and seek sanctions. Goodwin Decl. ¶ 5. To date, Mr. Goodwin has not
received disclosures or any other communication from Plaintiff. Goodwin Decl. ¶ 6.
Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion. Despite a reminder, additional time and a

23
24

warning of the consequences from Defendants, Plaintiff has not served his initial disclosures or

25

communicated with Defendants in any way. Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED.

26
1

27
2

28

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since March 6, 2013.

Plaintiff’s address of record with the Court is 285 Clarement Ave., Sanger, CA 93657. He has not filed a notice
of change of address. Local Rule 183(b).
2

1
2
3
4
5

Defendants also request sanctions in the amount of $807.50. Pursuant to Rule
37(a)(5)(A), if a motion to compel disclosures is granted, “the court must, after giving an
opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion . . . to pay
the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.
Discovery sanctions are appropriate only in “extreme circumstances” and when the violation is

6
7
8

due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party. Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d
899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002).
Again, Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion or communicate with Defendants leaves

9
10

the Court with no mitigating circumstances to weigh. Even considering Plaintiff’s pro se status,

11

Plaintiff was warned of the consequences of his conduct and failed to respond in any manner.

12

The Court therefore finds that sanctions in the amount of $807.50 are appropriate. This amount

13

represents 4.75 hours of attorney time at $170.003 per hour. Mr. Goodwin spent 4.75 hours

14

attempting to meet and confer with Plaintiff and in preparing the motion to compel.

15

ORDER

16
17

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED. IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:

18

1.

Plaintiff SHALL serve his initial disclosures on Defendants within thirty (30)

19

days of the date of this order. Plaintiff SHALL also file a notice of compliance
20

with the Court within this time confirming that disclosures have been made;

21

2.

22

Plaintiff SHALL pay sanctions in the amount of $807.50, to Defendants’ counsel,
within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order; and

23
24
25
26
27
3

28

$170.00 per hour is the amount set by the July 1, 2013, Administrative Bulletin setting forth rates and fees charged
for services provided by the Department of Justice. Goodwin Decl. ¶, 9, Ex. D.
3

1

3.

2

Discovery cut-off:

3
4

The deadlines are extended as follows:
September 9, 2014

Dispositive Motions: November 10, 2014
Failure to comply with this order WILL result in further sanctions, including the

5

possible dismissal of this action.
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

June 19, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4