Fetter v. Bonner, et al.,

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/28/2016 ORDERING Attorney Allen Hassan, not his client, to pay the County defendants within 21 days, $671.50 for the reasonable expenses they incurred in bringing the 64 Motion to Compel Discovery Responses; ORDERING Mr. Hassan to inform the plaintiff in writing of this order, to provide a copy to the plainitff and to file a declaration within 21 days that his client has been so informed. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE FETTER,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:12-cv-2235-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF, EDWARD
N. BONNER, individually and in his
Official Capacity, COUNTY OF PLACER,
CALIFORNIA FORENSICS MEDICAL
GROUP (CFMG), PLACER COUNTY
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1
through 20,

18

Defendants.

19
20

This matter was before the court on January 20, 2016, for hearing on defendants Edward

21

Bonner, the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, and County of Placer’s (“County defendants”) motion

22

to compel plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories and the court’s January 7, 2016 order to show

23

cause why plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failure to file an opposition to the County

24

defendants’ motion. ECF Nos. 64, 67. Attorney Tamiya Davis appeared on behalf of the County

25

defendants. Notwithstanding the court’s order to show cause, no appearance was made on behalf

26

of the plaintiff.

27
28

For the reasons stated on the record, the County defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No.
64) is granted. Plaintiff shall provide responses to the County defendants’ Interrogatories, Set
1

1

One within fourteen days of the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order may result in

2

the dismissal of this action.

3

Further, the court finds that the wholesale failure to timely respond to the defendants’

4

interrogatories was not substantially justified. Further, in addition to ignoring the discovery

5

request, plaintiff’s counsel, Allen Hassan, failed to timely file either an opposition or statement of

6

non-opposition to the motion to compel in violation of Local Rule 230. Mr. Hassan has also

7

ignored entirely the court’s January 7, 2016 order to show cause why sanctions should not be

8

imposed for that violation.1

9

In light of counsel’s conduct in this case, Allen Hassan, and not his client,2 is ordered to

10

pay the County defendants $671.50 for the reasonable expenses they incurred in bringing the

11

instant motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (if a motion to compel is granted, the court must

12

require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses

13

incurred in making the motion); ECF No. 73 (declaration of Clayton Cook establishing that the

14

reasonable expenses for litigating the motion totaled $671.50). Mr. Hassan is ordered to make

15

this payment within 21 days of the date of this order. This sanction is personal to Mr. Hassan and

16

is not to be passed on to his client in the form of attorney fees or costs. Mr. Hassan shall inform

17

the plaintiff in writing of this order and provide a copy to the plaintiff. Mr. Hassan shall file a

18

declaration within 21 days of the date of this order that has client has been so informed.

19

So Ordered.

20

DATED: January 28, 2016.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

A previous Order to Show Cause directed at plaintiff’s counsel has also had little effect.
See ECF No. 31 (OSC re violation of order to submit a joint status report) and ECF No. 33 at 1 &
2 (Joint Status Report by all defendants indicating that several attempts were made by defense
counsel to obtain plaintiff’s counsel participation in the report but no response was received).
2

See In re Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984) (“If the fault lies with the
attorney, that is where the impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients,
that is where the impact of the sanction should be lodged.”).
2