Rodgers v. Martin et al

Filing 76

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 71 Motion to Deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/03/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SYNRICO RODGERS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
C.C. MARTIN, et al.,

14

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01686-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 71)

Defendants.

15
16

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17

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

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendants

19

Martin and Blattel on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment

20

deliberate indifference claims.

21

On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his

22

discovery requests. (ECF No. 40.) On August 29, 2014, the Court granted in part

23

Plaintiff’s motion and ordered Defendants to provide, within twenty days, a further

24

response to Plaintiff’s request for production, set two, items numbers 1, 2, and 4, or to

25

present the requested documents to the Court for in camera review. (ECF No. 52.)

26

Defendants objected in part, arguing that some of the material they were ordered to

27

produce with respect to item number 2 is confidential and irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims.

28

(ECF No. 60.) The Court denied the objections without prejudice on the ground

1

Defendants had not produced the allegedly confidential material for in camera review.

2

(ECF No. 72.) Defendants then renewed their objections, and sought to file the

3

confidential documents under seal. (ECF No. 74.) The renewed objections and request

4

to seal remain pending.

5

On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 47.)

6

On August 11, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 48.)

7

Briefing on both motions has been completed. (ECF Nos. 49, 65, 70.)

8

After briefing was completed, Plaintiff filed a motion to deny Defendants’ motion

9

for summary judgment on the ground Defendants allegedly failed to produce discovery

10

documents as required by the Court’s August 29, 2014 order. (ECF No. 71.) Defendants

11

opposed the motion. (ECF No. 73.) No reply was filed and the time for doing so has

12

passed.
The Court herein addresses Plaintiff’s motion to deny Defendants’ motion for

13
14

summary judgment.

15

II.

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

16

Plaintiff argues that Defendants did not produce discovery documents as required

17

by the Court’s order. Plaintiff specifically argues that the documents requested in item

18

number 4 “would’ve shown that the Defendants had or have previous staff complaints,

19

602s, and other grievances against them . . . and that piece of evidence would’ve been

20

very important to my lawsuit.” (ECF No. 71.)

21

Defendants respond that, with the exception of documents objected to and

22

provided to the Court for in camera review, they provided further responses to Plaintiff’s

23

discovery requests in compliance with the Court’s order on September 25, 2014. (ECF

24

No. 73.) With respect to the documents requested in item number 4, Defendants’

25

supplemental response stated that complaints against Defendants alleging use of force

26

within the relevant time period “have never existed.” (ECF No. 73.)

27
28
2

1

III.

Plaintiff’s motion may be construed as a request to deny Defendant’s motion for

2
3

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

summary judgment as a discovery sanction.

4

A.

5

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party “fails to obey an order to

6

provide or permit discovery . . . the court where the action is pending may issue further

7

just orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Such “just orders” may include the following:

8

Legal Standard

(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other
designated facts be taken as established for the purposes of
the action, as the prevailing party claims;

9
10

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or
opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing
designated matters in evidence;

11
12

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;

13

(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;

14
15

(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;

16

(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient
party; or

17
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order
except an order to submit to a physical or mental
examination.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Id.
The appropriateness of a discovery sanction is within the broad discretion of the
court. Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Nat’l
Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976)). The Ninth
Circuit has identified five factors that courts should consider in determining the
appropriateness of discovery sanctions: “1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution
of litigation; 2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 3) the risk of prejudice to the
defendants; 4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; [and] 5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions.” Wendt v. Host Int'l, Inc., 125 F.3d 806, 814 (9th Cir.
3

1

1997) (citing Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990)). “What is most

2

critical for case-dispositive sanctions . . . is whether the discovery violations ‘threaten to

3

interfere with the rightful decision of the case.’” Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158

4

F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998).

5

B.

Analysis

6

Nothing before the Court indicates a discovery sanction is warranted. Defendants

7

state that they obeyed the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and

8

Plaintiff provides no argument to the contrary. Thus, Defendants have not failed “to obey

9

an order to provide or permit discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).

10

To the extent Plaintiff complains that documents responsive to his request

11

number 4 were not produced, Defendants respond that no such documents exist.

12

Defendant cannot be compelled to produce documents that do not exist. Their failure to

13

produce such documents does not warrant sanctions. See e.g., David v. Caterpillar, Inc.,

14

324 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2003) (no discovery sanction where court in its broad

15

discretion finds the responding party's conduct to be justified or harmless).

16

IV.

17
18

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56(d)
Plaintiff’s motion also may be read as seeking to deny Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d).

19

A.

Legal Standard

20

“If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it

21

cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer

22

considering the motion or deny it; [or] (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or

23

to take discovery . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). When a motion for summary judgment is

24

filed “before a party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its

25

theory of the case,” a Rule 56(d) motion should be freely granted. Burlington N. Santa Fe

26

R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767,

27

773 (9th Cir. 2003).

28
4

1

A party asserting that discovery is necessary to oppose a motion for summary

2

judgment “shall provide a specification of the particular facts on which discovery is to be

3

had or the issues on which discovery is necessary.” Local Rule 260(b). “The Courts

4

which have denied a Rule 56[(d)] application for lack of sufficient showing to support

5

further discovery appear to have done so where it was clear that the evidence sought

6

was almost certainly nonexistent or was the object of pure speculation.” VISA Int’l. Serv.

7

Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

8

B.

Analysis

9

Plaintiff has provided no basis for denying Defendants’ motion for summary

10

judgment under Rule 56(d). The motion for summary judgment has been fully briefed,

11

and neither Plaintiff’s opposition (ECF No. 65) nor the present motion (ECF No. 71)

12

indicates he was prejudiced in his ability to oppose the motion for summary judgment

13

due to incomplete discovery. Nothing before the Court provides a specification of facts

14

on which discovery is necessary or essential to Plaintiff’s opposition. Further, to the

15

extent Plaintiff’s motion is based on Defendants’ failure to produce documents

16

responsive to request number 4, as noted above, no such documents exist. Id.

17

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

18

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to deny Defendants’ motion for

19

summary judgment (ECF No. 71) is HEREBY DENIED. The Court will consider Plaintiff’s

20

and Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment in due course.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 3, 2015

/s/

24

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
5