Giraldes v. Oania, et al.
Filing
133
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/03/18 DENYING 124 Motion for Extension of time. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendants motion forterminating sanctions 112 be GRANTED and this case be dismissed with prejudice. Motion 112 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LARRY GIRALDES, Jr.,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-726-JAM-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
OANIA, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants Oania, Casas, Tuers, Hampton, Macomber, Lynch, and
19
Jibson violated his rights by retaliating against him due to his litigative conduct. ECF No. 13.
20
Now pending before the court are two discovery related motions.
21
First, defendants have filed a motion for terminating sanctions or involuntary dismissal
22
(ECF No. 112) based on plaintiff’s failure to respond to written discovery. For his part, plaintiff
23
has filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 124) wherein he asks that the deadline for
24
responding to defendants’ discovery requests be extended. He states that he does not understand
25
what “Bates” numbers are and this confusion militates in favor of additional time. Id. at 1-2.
26
Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 126. Plaintiff then filed a request
27
for the court’s notice (ECF No. 127), to which defendants responded (ECF No. 128) and plaintiff
28
replied (ECF No. 129).
1
1
2
For the reasons stated below, the court recommends that defendants’ motion for sanctions
be granted.
3
I.
4
The court granted (in part) defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 74) on March 15,
Background
5
2017. ECF No. 90. In response to this order, plaintiff served responses on April 6, 2017 (ECF
6
No. 94-2, at ¶ 2, Exs. A-C) which defendants deemed deficient. After unsuccessfully attempting
7
to resolve these deficiencies by way of a letter and a teleconference, defendants filed a motion for
8
terminating sanctions on May 15, 2017. ECF No. 94. On July 27, 2017, the court denied the
9
motion for terminating sanctions without prejudice and directed the parties to meet and confer
10
and make a good faith effort to resolve their issues informally. ECF No. 109. On October 27,
11
2017 defendants filed a renewed motion for terminating sanctions which indicated the following:
12
1.
To comply with the order to meet and confer, defendants’ counsel made
13
arrangements for an in-person meeting with plaintiff at California State Prison-Sacramento
14
(“CSP-SAC”) which was to be held on August 10, 2017. ECF No. 112-1 at 1 ¶ 2. A letter was
15
mailed to both plaintiff and the CSP-SAC litigation coordinator advising them of the meeting. Id.
16
at 1-2 ¶ 2. An informational chrono attached to plaintiff’s motion indicates that, on August 2,
17
2017, the aforementioned letter was delivered to plaintiff and that he stated that he understood its
18
contents. Id. at 8, Ex. B.
19
2.
On August 9, 2017, plaintiff called defendants’ counsel and stated that an
20
unnamed doctor, who had somehow been made aware of the meeting schedule for the next day,
21
was reducing plaintiff’s medication and, as a consequence, plaintiff might be too sick to attend
22
the meeting. Id. at 4 ¶ 3. Defendants’ counsel informed plaintiff that he still intended to proceed
23
with the meeting. Id. After the phone call, defendants’ counsel contacted the CSP-SAC litigation
24
coordinator, who informed him that she was unsure as to how a doctor would have learned of the
25
meeting, given that information concerning legal visits was disseminated only on a need-to-know
26
basis. Id.
27
3.
28
The meeting, in spite of the foregoing, went ahead on August 10, 2017 and
defendants’ counsel noted that plaintiff was engaged in the conversation and did not appear sick.
2
1
Id. at 4 ¶ 4. At the meeting, plaintiff agreed to provide supplemental responses to defendants’
2
discovery requests by August 31, 2017. Id. A letter summarizing the discussion was sent to
3
plaintiff by defendants’ counsel on August 11, 2017 and no objections to this letter were
4
forthcoming. Id.
5
4.
Plaintiff provided partial supplemental responses to defendants on or about August
6
16, 2017. Id. at 4 ¶ 5. Defendants’ counsel sent a letter detailing the deficiencies, specifically
7
plaintiff’s failure to: (1) provide verified responses to all of the interrogatories; (2) respond to
8
interrogatories one and two; and (3) identify the documents responsive to each discovery request.
9
Id. at 31-32. The letter set a date – August 31, 2017 at 10 a.m., for the parties to discuss these
10
issues by phone. Id. at 32. That conversation occurred as scheduled and, afterwards, defendants’
11
counsel sent plaintiff a lengthy set of Bates stamped documents which plaintiff had provided at a
12
2015 deposition. Id. at 5 ¶ 7. These documents were provided to plaintiff to facilitate his efforts
13
in responding to the outstanding discovery requests. Id. Plaintiff subsequently acknowledged
14
receipt of these documents and agreed to provide the additional responses by September 29, 2017.
15
Id. at 5 ¶ 8.
16
5.
When defendants’ counsel had not received the supplemental responses by
17
October 9, 2017, he sent another letter to plaintiff stating as much. Id. at 54. To date, defendants’
18
counsel states that he has still not received the discovery responses which plaintiff promised. Id.
19
at 6 ¶ 11. He further states that, from July 26, 2017 to October 27, 2017, the California
20
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had expended roughly 5,100 dollars in connection
21
with counsel’s attempts to procure the foregoing responses from plaintiff. Id. at 6 ¶ 12.
22
II.
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) states:
24
Legal Standards
On motion or on its own, the court may issue any just orders,
including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)–(vii), if a party .
. . fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.
25
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
3
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) states:
2
The court . . . may issue further just orders. They may include the following:
3
...
4
dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part . . .
The Ninth Circuit has held that five factors are to be considered before imposing the
5
6
sanction of dismissal, namely:
7
(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
8
(2) the court’s need to manage its docket;
9
(3) the risk of prejudice to the other party;
10
(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;
11
and
12
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.
13
Leon v. IDX Systems, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (upholding terminating sanctions for willful
14
destruction of evidence). When a court’s order is violated, the first two factors will militate in
15
favor of dismissal, while the fourth will weigh against. Adriana Intl. Corp. v. Lewis & Co., 913
16
F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
17
Cir. 1990) (“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors
18
dismissal.”). As to the third factor, a party must establish that their adversary’s actions impaired
19
their ability to proceed to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.
20
Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, with regard to
21
the availability of lesser sanctions, the court must consider whether:
22
(1) the court explicitly discussed the feasibility of less drastic sanctions
23
and explained why alternative sanctions would be inappropriate;
24
(2) the court implemented alternative sanctions; and
25
(3) the court warned the disobedient party of the possibility of dismissal before
26
ordering the dismissal.
27
Adriana Intl. Corp., 913 F.2d at 1412-1413.
28
/////
4
1
III.
2
On June 23, 2016, the court directed plaintiff, inter alia, to provide a signed verification
3
with all his discovery responses. ECF No. 66 at 9. And, as noted above, on March 15, 2017 the
4
court granted defendants’ motion to compel in part and directed plaintiff to provide further
5
discovery responses. ECF No. 90 at 8. Specifically, the court directed plaintiff to provide further
6
responses to:
7
Analysis
(1) interrogatory numbers 1, 2, and 6; (2) request for admission
numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 24; and (3) request for
production numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, and 22, in accordance with the court’s June 23, 2016 order
(ECF No. 66). Plaintiff must also provide a verification concerning
all of his interrogatory responses.
8
9
10
11
Id. To date, plaintiff has failed to fully comply with these orders.1 In particular, plaintiff’s
12
responses to defendants’ requests for production have continued to vaguely reference documents
13
that had already been provided or which could be found in his central file (ECF No. 94-2 at 9-14),
14
despite a previous admonishment from the court that “[d]efense counsel should not have to guess
15
as to which documents previously ‘offered’ by plaintiff correspond to each of defendants’
16
requests for production of documents” (ECF No. 66 at 10).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
It is also abundantly clear that the foregoing omissions in discovery are not attributable to
good faith mistake. As defendants’ counsel points out, the relevant discovery was served in
1
The court has considered and taken full account of document plaintiff filed on March 9,
2018, entitled “Notice re Discovery” (ECF No. 125) wherein he answered interrogatories one and
two (id. at 6-7), but claimed that he could not provide the remaining discovery responses because
he did not know what “Bates” stamps were or “how to find them” (id. at 2). He also claimed that
the prison law librarian would not permit him to make copies of any documents. Id. Then, on
April 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a document with the court entitled “Discovery Response.” ECF No.
130. Therein, plaintiff provides responses to three of defendants’ requests for production and
states that he will respond to the others when his circumstances allow. Id. at 2-5. He asserts that
he is unable to provide full responses because prison officials have “recently intensified [their]
efforts” to interfere with his litigation. Id. at 2. Finally, on April 27, 2018, plaintiff filed another
set of discovery responses addressing nine of the defendants’ still outstanding requests for
production. ECF No. 132.
These responses are both too late and insufficient. As noted in these recommendations,
this discovery dispute is hardly new and plaintiff should have provided all of his responses well
before this point. Allowing plaintiff to submit piecemeal responses now, without penalty, would
effectively reward his intransigence.
5
1
October of 2015 and, consequently, these discovery disputes have dragged for more than two
2
years despite prior orders and admonishments from the court. Plaintiff also made it clear, in a
3
2015 letter to Defendants’ counsel that he intended to provide only “meager” responses. ECF No.
4
44-2 at 74, Ex. B. He specifically wrote (to defendants’ previous counsel, Kelly Samson):
5
I will not be answering your discovery for the m[o]st part, as just
about everything I need to answer are part of documents your
defendants feels (sic) are irrelevant and, or, not d[i]scoverable. . . . I
will seek an order to allow me 30 days from the date the court
orders defendants to supply whatever discovery it deems
appropriate when it rules on my Motion to Compel. Until then, I
have evidence in which to supply most of the answers. If there is
anything I can answer, I will, but it will be meager to say the least.
6
7
8
9
10
Id. (emphasis added). Despite repeated conferences regarding discovery between plaintiff and
11
defendants’ counsel and two court orders directing him to provide the relevant discovery, plaintiff
12
has persisted in frustrating defendants’ attempts to engage in meaningful discovery. The court
13
notes that it is not unusual for opposing parties to disagree, sometimes vehemently, as to the
14
relevance or propriety of discovery requests. There comes a point, however, where zealous
15
advocacy of one’s interests veers into simple bad faith. Plaintiff, for the reasons described above,
16
has made that turn. Thus, sanctions are appropriate.
17
The court does not lightly undertake the recommendation of terminating sanctions.
18
Nevertheless, they appear necessary in this case. Plaintiff has failed to timely and fully comply
19
with this court’s discovery orders, thus the first two of the Ninth Circuit’s factors – the public’s
20
interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket - are met.
21
See Adriana Intl. Corp., 913 F.2d at 1412. And defendants have adequately shown a risk of
22
prejudice. Failing to produce documents as directed by the court and unreasonable delay are both
23
sufficient to show prejudice. See In re: Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability
24
Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006).
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
6
1
2
While public policy does favor disposition of cases on the merits, courts have recognized
that:
3
[A] case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a party’s failure
to comply with deadlines and discovery obligations cannot move
forward toward resolution on the merits. Thus, we have also
recognized that this factor lends little support to a party whose
responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits
but whose conduct impedes progress in that direction.
4
5
6
Id. at 1228. Given the two year span of frustrated discovery which may fairly be attributed to
7
plaintiff, the court finds that this factor does not weigh in favor of a lesser sanction.
8
Finally, the court has previously considered less drastic sanctions to obtain plaintiff’s
9
compliance and found them wanting. Further, an explicit warning to plaintiff that failure to
10
comply with discovery orders would result in dismissal have had little effect. In its March 15,
11
2017 order on defendants’ motion to compel, the court wrote:
12
Defendants’ request for sanctions, however, is denied at this time.
While plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s June 23, 2016
order requiring him to supplement his discovery responses lacks
justification, an award of costs or other monetary sanctions would
be an ineffective deterrent and inappropriate here in light of
plaintiff’s indigent status. . . . However, plaintiff is hereby
admonished that his continued failure to cooperate in discovery or
to comply with this order may result in evidentiary sanctions or
even the dismissal of this case.
13
14
15
16
17
ECF No. 90 at 6 (emphasis added and internal citations omitted). This passage also demonstrates
18
that plaintiff was, in no uncertain terms, warned about the possibility of terminating sanctions.
19
IV.
Conclusion
20
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time
21
(ECF No. 124) is DENIED as moot. It is further RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion for
22
terminating sanctions (ECF No. 112) be GRANTED and this case be dismissed with prejudice.
23
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
24
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
25
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
26
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
27
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
28
7
1
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
2
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
DATED: May 3, 2018.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?