Hoffmann et al v. Lassen County et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/29/2017 DENYING plaintiff's 50 motion to compel and DENYING defendants' request for sanctions contained in their opposition to the motion to compel. Within 14 days, plaintiff may fil e a supplement to his opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion to add argument regarding defendants' responses to plaintiff's discovery ordered on 5/26/2017. Plaintiff's supplement may not exceed 10 pages and may address only defendants' discovery responses that were served pursuant to the May 26 order. Within ten days of the date of service of plaintiff's supplemental opposition, defendants may file a supplemental reply. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KASEY F. HOFFMANN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1382 DB P

v.

ORDER

LASSEN COUNTY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

17
18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants interfered with his right to marry.

19

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to comply with the court’s order

20

requiring defendants to provide discovery responses. For the reasons set forth below, the court

21

will deny the motion.
In an order filed May 26, 2017, the court granted in part plaintiff’s first motion to compel.

22
23

(ECF No. 44.) The court required defendants to provide plaintiff with responses to certain

24

deposition questions as though those questions had been propounded as interrogatories.

25

Defendants were required to serve those responses within fifteen days of the court’s order. The

26

court informed plaintiff that if he was not satisfied with defendants' responses to the deposition

27

questions, he could file a motion to compel within ten days of receiving defendants' responses.

28

////
1

1

In a document dated June 11 and filed here on June 15, 2017, plaintiff moved to compel

2

defendants to comply with the May 26 order. (ECF No. 50.) On June 22, 2017, defendants filed

3

a response. (ECF No. 53.) Therein, defendants state that they timely served the discovery

4

responses required by the May 26 order. (ECF No. 53.) Defendants provide copies of both sets

5

of responses with proofs of service showing they were mailed to plaintiff on June 9, 2017. (ECF

6

No. 53-1 at 8, 16.) Service on plaintiff was complete when defendants placed the documents in

7

the mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2). Therefore, defendants timely served the responses required

8

by the May 26 order and plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

9

Defendants complain that plaintiff should be sanctioned for filing a premature motion to

10

compel and for failing to meet and confer to seek an informal resolution. (ECF No. 53 at 5-6.)

11

Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of their attorneys’ fees which totaled $720.00 to respond

12

to the motion. Defendants’ motion is partly baseless. The meet and confer requirement is set out

13

in Local Rule 251. The court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order specifically states that Rule 251

14

shall not apply in this case. (ECF No. 29 at 5.) That said, the court agrees that plaintiff’s filing

15

was premature. However, the court does not find plaintiff’s filing so egregious as to warrant an

16

award of sanctions. Further, the sanctions sought are not reasonable because defendants

17

opposition is unnecessarily lengthy. Defendants needed only to inform the court that they had

18

served the discovery responses in a timely manner. For these reasons, defendants’ request for

19

sanctions will be denied.

20

Finally, based on the delay in resolving the discovery dispute, plaintiff did not have an

21

opportunity to include defendants’ responses to the court-ordered discovery in his briefing in

22

opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion. The court will permit plaintiff the

23

opportunity to file a limited supplement to his opposition brief and, if he does, defendants will

24

have the opportunity to file a supplement to their reply brief.

25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

26

1. Plaintiff’s June 15, 2017 motion to compel (ECF No. 50) is denied;

27

2. Defendants’ request for sanctions contained in their opposition to the motion to compel is

28

denied; and
2

1

3. Within fourteen days of the filed date of this order, plaintiff may file a supplement to his

2

opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion to add argument regarding

3

defendants' responses to plaintiff’s discovery ordered on May 26, 2017. Plaintiff’s

4

supplement may not exceed ten pages and may address only defendants' discovery

5

responses that were served pursuant to the May 26 order. Within ten days of the date of

6

service of plaintiff’s supplemental opposition, defendants may file a supplemental reply.

7

Dated: June 29, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/hoff1382.mtc2 or

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3