King v. Martinez, et al.

Filing 85

ORDER denying 80 Motion to Compel and for Imposition of Sanctions signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/29/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MARIO KING,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

W.S. WADKINS,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00433-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL AND FOR IMPOSITION OF
SANCTIONS
[ECF No. 80]

Plaintiff Mario King is a state prisoner and appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for imposition of sanctions, filed

20

November 1, 2017. Defendant filed an opposition on November 14, 2017. Plaintiff did not file a

21

reply and the time to do so has expired. Accordingly, the instant motion is submitted for review

22

without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l).

23

I.

24

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

25
26
27
28

This action is proceeding against Defendant W.S. Wadkins for alleged due process violations
relating to a rules violation for fighting with another inmate.
Defendant Wadkins filed an answer to the complaint on August 18, 2016, and on August 23,
2016, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order.
1

1

On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, and Defendant opposed the motion on

2

the ground that Defendant had not been served with the discovery requests. On September 13, 2017,

3

the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel, but ordered Defendant to serve responses to Plaintiff’s

4

first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents within forty-five days of the

5

Court’s order.

6

On October 27, 2017, Defendant filed a request for an extension of time to serve his

7

interrogatory responses. The Court granted Defendant’s request on October 30, 2017, and granted

8

Defendant until November 3, 2017, to serve his responses to the interrogatory requests.

9

Defendant submits that he served his response to the requests for production of documents on

10

October 27, 2017, and his response to the interrogatory requests on October 30, 2017. (Declaration of

11

A. De La Torre-Fennell (De La Torre-Fennell) ¶¶ 5, 7; ECF No. 81-1.)

12

II.

13

DISCUSSION

14

A.

15

This is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The discovery

16

process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of discovery

17

responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246

18

(9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any

19

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of

20

the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the

21

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery

22

in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

23

likely benefit.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

24

Motion to Compel

Plaintiff filed his motion to compel on November 1, 2017, self-dated by Plaintiff on October

25

28, 2017. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to comply respond to the

26

outstanding discovery requests as ordered in the Court’s September 13, 2017 order, and Plaintiff

27

requests imposition of sanctions. However, defense counsel declares that on October 27, 2017-just

28

one day prior to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendant timely served a response to Plaintiff’s
2

1

requests for production of documents. (De La Torre-Fennell ¶ 5) Then, after receiving an extension

2

of time, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s interrogatory requests on October 30, 2017. (De La

3

Torre-Fennell ¶ 7.) Accordingly, there is no basis to grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel and it must be

4

denied.

5

B.

6

Plaintiff seeks $875.23 for the filing of the instant motion to compel, and an additional $875.27

7

Request for Imposition of Sanctions and Reasonable Expenses

as sanctions.

8

“Sanctions may be warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) for failure to

9

obey a discovery order as long as the established issue bears a reasonable relationship to the subject of

10

discovery that was frustrated by sanctionable conduct.” Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 947 (9th

11

Cir. 2001). Under Rule 37(b)(2), subsections (A) through (C), sanctions are “appropriate only in

12

‘extreme circumstances’ and where the violation is ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the

13

party.’” Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002).

14

If a motion to compel discovery is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be

15

heard, require the party … whose conduct necessitated the motion … to pay the movant’s reasonable

16

expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

17

Plaintiff’s pro se status does not insulate him from sanctions for failure to respond to discovery. See

18

Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994) (a court cannot decline to impose sanctions

19

simply because a plaintiff is proceeding pro se); Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 470 (C.D.

20

Cal. 2014) (pro se status “does not excuse intentional noncompliance with discovery rules.”).

21

As an initial matter, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action and has therefore not incurred

22

attorney’s fees. In addition, as explained above, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant has failed to respond

23

to his discovery requests is without merit and there is no basis for imposition of sanctions.

24

Accordingly, there is simply no justification to impose sanctions against Defendant, and Plaintiff’s

25

motion must be denied.

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel and for

1
2

imposition of sanctions is DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

November 29, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4