Sahibi v. Gonzales. et al.

Filing 116

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 107 Motion for Sanctions, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/13/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

OUSSAMA SAHIBI,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE No. 1:15-cv-01581-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS

v.
(ECF NO. 107)
BORJAS GONZALES, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

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

18

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

19

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Cope, Gonzales, Lozano,

20

Smith, and Stane, and on a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against

21

Defendant Crounse.

22

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 3, 2017 motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 107.)

23

Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 112, 114.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is

24

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

25

I.

Procedural and Factual History

26

On April 5, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to

27

compel. (ECF No. 102.) Therein, the Court ordered Defendants to provide a further,

28

limited response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 19 by providing
1

1

Plaintiff with Office of Investigative Affairs (“OIA”) files pertaining to the incident at issue

2

in this case.

3
4

On April 13, 2017, Defendants served their further response. (ECF No. 105.)
Their response indicated that no such records exist. (See ECF No. 107.)

5

On May 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for sanctions. He claims that

6

Defendants’ supplemental response is deficient. He points to a letter he received from an

7

Investigative Services Unit (“ISU”) and Internal Affairs Lieutenant, discussing a letter

8

sent by Plaintiff’s father to the Office of Internal Affairs. That letter states, “The

9

allegations were forwarded to Investigative Services Unit (ISU) and Internal Affairs (IA)

10

Lieutenant P. Chanelo for an inquiry. The inquiry has been completed and the outcome

11

has been forwarded to Martin Biter, Warden, for review and recommendation.” (ECF No.

12

107 at 4.) Plaintiff also points to a letter received by his father, stating that the “Office of

13

Internal Affairs (OIA) is in receipt of your Citizens’ Complaint,” and that the complaint

14

was forwarded to the Warden.

15

In their opposition, Defendants acknowledge that records pertaining to the

16

complaint made by Plaintiff’s father were not produced to Plaintiff. They state that

17

additional research was conducted in relation to the instant motion, three responsive

18

letters were identified, and they were produced to Plaintiff as a supplemental response.

19

Because they documents were not part of an OIA investigation, and instead were

20

maintained by ISU, they were provided to Plaintiff as a supplemental response to his

21

Request for Production No. 41.

22

II.

Legal Standard

23

Plaintiff moves for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(3). Rule

24

26(g) requires the Court to impose sanctions on a party or attorney that improperly

25

certifies, without justification, that a discovery response is complete and correct and that

26

a reasonable inquiry was made with respect to the legal and factual basis for the

27

response. The reasonableness of the inquiry is measured by an objective standard;

28

there is no required showing of bad faith. See Zimmerman v. Bishop Estate, 25 F.3d
2

1

784, 790 (9th Cir. 1994); Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543,

2

555 (N.D. Cal. 1987). “The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable

3

expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the violation.”

4

III.

Discussion

5

This Court has engaged in lengthy and tedious review of discovery requests and

6

responses, privilege logs and confidential documents in this case. (See ECF No. 102.) At

7

the heart of Plaintiff’s discovery requests were two matters: (1) documents pertaining to

8

Defendants’ disciplinary history, and (2) documents pertaining to the investigation of the

9

incident at issue in this case. In regard to the latter, Plaintiff’s Request for Production No.

10

41 sought “Any and all information, written statements pertaining to or relevant to the

11

Incident on July 13, 2013.”

12

When Plaintiff did not receive internal investigative documents through

13

Defendants’ discovery responses, he filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 83.) That

14

motion specifically identified the letter sent by his father to the Office of Internal Affairs,

15

and at issue on the instant motion, as the source of his belief that additional documents

16

existed that had not been disclosed by Defendants or listed on their privilege log. (ECF

17

No. 83 at 6-7, 149-50.) The Court granted the motion to compel in part, and ordered

18

Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the OIA files or to provide the files to the Court for in

19

camera review. (ECF No. 102.)

20

In light of this history, Plaintiff’s father’s complaint letter was known to be at issue

21

in this case at least by the time Plaintiff filed his motion to compel, if not before.

22

Nonetheless, Defendants apparently did not attempt to locate documents relating to the

23

complaint when they opposed the motion to compel or when they provided supplemental

24

responses based on the Court’s order on that motion. It is of grave concern to the Court

25

that but for Plaintiff’s knowledge of the letter and his persistence in seeking it and related

26

documents, the ISU material may never have come to light. The Defense is cautioned

27

against providing discovery responses that champion form over substance in a way that

28

interferes with the parties’, and the Court’s, ability to get to the core issue in this case.
3

1

Despite the Court’s concern and its dismay and frustration with this oversight, the

2

Court cannot conclude that the response was objectively unreasonable. The Court’s

3

order on the motion to compel did not specifically address these letters (if only because it

4

appeared, from the face of the correspondence, that the letters had been sent to the OIA

5

and that production of OIA records would also produce documents relevant to Plaintiff’s

6

father’s complaint). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s discovery requests were assembled pro se,

7

and were somewhat confusing and overbroad. The vast majority of Defendants’

8

discovery responses were proper. The Court ultimately cannot conclude that

9

Defendants’ deficient response was substantially unjustified.

10

Furthermore, Plaintiff now has received the documents associated with the

11

complaint letters. Trial in this matter is more than a year away and Defendants have not

12

moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. It therefore does not

13

appear that Plaintiff was prejudiced by the delay in producing these documents.

14
15
16

Thus, the Court will deny the motion.
IV.

Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is HEREBY DENIED.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 13, 2017

/s/

20

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4