Griffin v. Johnson et al

Filing 164

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Defendants' 112 MOTION for SANCTIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/11/17. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within 14 Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

Case No. 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,

14

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS

15

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

(ECF No. 112)

13

Defendants.

16

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

22

Currently pending before the Court is a motion for sanctions filed by Defendants Ross,

23

Sexton, Smith, Thor, and Valdez (“Defendants”) based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to

24

interrogatories. (ECF No. 112.) Plaintiff opposed the motion on November 7, 2016. (ECF No.

25

133.) Defendants replied on November 14, 2016, and Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Busch and

26

Munoz joined in the reply on November 15, 2016. (ECF Nos. 136, 137.)

27

I.

Background

28

On February 1, 2016, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, which set the
1

1

deadline for completion of discovery as October 1, 2016. (ECF No. 48.) On April 8, 2016, the

2

Court stayed discovery during settlement negotiations, but lifted the stay on May 5, 2016. (ECF

3

Nos. 70, 75.)

4

On May 13, 2016, Defendants served their discovery requests on Plaintiff. (ECF No.

5

112-1, Declaration of Counsel K. Burnley (“Burnley Decl.”), Ex. A.) On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff

6

moved for a protective order because Defendants inadvertently requested thirty days for

7

Plaintiff’s responses, instead of the forty-five days permitted by the Court’s Discovery and

8

Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 83.) On June 23, 2016, Defendants acknowledged the error and re-

9

served their discovery requests. (ECF No. 87; Burnley Decl., Ex. B.) After failing to receive

10

discovery responses, Defendants filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 90.) However, the Court

11

denied the motion without prejudice, because it issued an order directing Plaintiff to provide

12

discovery responses by September 26, 2016. (ECF No. 94.)

13

Defendants received Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Request for Production of

14

Documents (Set One) on September 26, 2016. Defendants also received Plaintiff’s responses to

15

Defendant Bell’s Request for Responses to Interrogatories (Set One) and Defendant Kul’s

16

Request for Responses to Interrogatories (Set One) on September 28, 2016. (Burnley Decl., Ex.

17

C.) Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses to Defendants Ross, Sexton, Smith, Thor, and

18

Valdez’s interrogatories. As a result, Defendants filed the instant motion for sanctions pursuant

19

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2).

20

By the instant motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s failure to respond discovery

21

has resulted in prejudice because they cannot defend against Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants

22

request that Plaintiff be prohibited from supporting his case or opposing Defendants’ defenses

23

with any evidence not disclosed in the discovery process.

24

Plaintiff’s willful failure to comply with the Court’s order should subject his case to dismissal.

Defendants also contend that

25

Plaintiff opposed the motion for sanctions on November 7, 2016, contending that he had

26

responded in writing to all of Defendants discovery requests, including 173 interrogatories and

27

205 requests for production of documents.1 (ECF No. 133 at p. 2.) Additionally, Plaintiff

28
1

Plaintiff reported that he also had responded to discovery requests propounded by Defendants Busch,
2

1

reported that Defendants took his deposition on September 23, 2016. In opposing sanctions,

2

Plaintiff argues that Defendants were given 5 months to respond to his single discovery request,

3

but he was not afforded equal time. Plaintiff further argues that he has not willfully failed to

4

obey any order and any delay in responding was due to his conditions of confinement, indigent

5

status, lack of a law library, and denial of photocopies by the prison in North Carolina. (Id. at

6

pp. 4-5.) Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion for sanctions and issue a protective

7

order in his favor because he has already responded in writing to Defendants’ discovery requests.

8

In reply, Defendants note that Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to timely respond to

9

Defendants’ discovery requests, and that he instead claims that he was unable to respond due to

10

his conditions of confinement. (ECF No. 136 at p. 1.) Defendants argue, however, that Plaintiff

11

had four months to respond to discovery requests and then failed to comply with the Court’s

12

order to respond by September 26, 2016. Defendants report that Plaintiff did not provide

13

responses to Sexton and Valdez’s interrogatories until October 10, 2016, and did not provide

14

responses to Defendants Thor, Ross and Smith’s interrogatories until October 14, 2016.

15

Defendants argue that the failure to timely respond substantially prejudiced them in this action,

16

and they were forced to take Plaintiff’s deposition without the aid of his discovery responses.

17

Defendants further argue that they could not conduct any additional discovery after receiving

18

Plaintiff’s late responses because the deadline to complete discovery was October 1, 2016.

19
20

II.

Motion for Sanctions
A. Legal Standard

21

Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if a party fails to obey

22

an order to provide or permit discovery, the Court may issue further just orders, which may

23

include prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or

24

defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). The

25

Court also may dismiss the action or proceeding in whole or in part. Id.

26

Additionally, Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply . . . with

27

any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . .

28
Johnson, Munoz and Gonzales. (ECF No. 133 at p. 2.)
3

1

within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their

2

dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where

3

appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A

4

court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action,

5

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran,

6

46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.

7

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

8

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir.

9

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order).

10

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1)

11

the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its

12

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

13

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779

14

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).

15

B. Analysis

16

Here, the Court does not find that sanctions are warranted—evidentiary or otherwise.

17

First, Defendants offer no explanation as to why they did not file a motion to compel discovery

18

before the October 1, 2016 deadline, after they failed to receive timely responses to their

19

discovery requests. Second, this is not a situation in which Plaintiff’s actions were willful,

20

resulting in a wholesale failure to respond to discovery. Instead, Defendants admit that they

21

received Plaintiff’s discovery responses less than 3 weeks after the Court’s September 26, 2016

22

deadline. (ECF No. 136, p. 2.) The Court also notes that Plaintiff requested a brief extension of

23

the Court’s deadline to submit his discovery responses and his request had not been resolved by

24

the time the instant motion was filed. (ECF No. 106.) Third, Defendants do not explain why or

25

how they were precluded from requesting modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order

26

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).

27

prejudiced because they received Plaintiff’s responses after the relevant discovery deadline and

28

thus could not conduct additional discovery. However, there is no indication in the record that
4

Defendants claim that they were

1

they undertook any effort to extend the discovery deadlines in this action. Rather, the record

2

demonstrates that Defendants elected to file a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

3

status and dismiss this action. (ECF No. 108.) Defendants later withdrew that motion, but again

4

made no effort to modify any deadlines in this action, including the discovery deadline and the

5

dispositive motion deadline. (ECF Nos. 139, 140.) Finally, Plaintiff’s circumstances make the

6

imposition of sanctions unjust. In addition to the limitations of confinement imposed on all

7

prisoners, Plaintiff reportedly was subjected to additional limitations imposed by his

8

incarceration in North Carolina. Plaintiff also was required to respond to multiple sets of

9

discovery requests propounded by multiple defendants in this action.

10

III.

11

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motion for

12

Conclusion and Recommendation

sanctions, filed on October 3, 2016, be DENIED.

13

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

14

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

15

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties

16

may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

17

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

18

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the

19

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

20

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 11, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
5