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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?