Bonner v. Medical Board of California

Filing 73

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/1/2020 GRANTING 69 Motion to Compel; DIRECTING plaintiff to produce responses to either defendants' First or Third Set of Requests for Production as well as to defendants' Second Set of Requests for Production within 28 days; DIRECTING plaintiff's counsel to pay defendants $2,640 for defendants' attorney's fees within 28 days; and VACATING the 6/5/2020 Motion hearing. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERNEST LINCOLN BONNER, JR., M.D.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-0445 KJM DB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, et
al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On May 11, 2020, defendants filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for hearing

19

before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 69.) The motion is noticed

20

for hearing before the undersigned on June 5, 2020. (ECF No. 71.) According to defendants’

21

motion, plaintiff’s “written responses to Defendants’ First and Third Sets of Requests for

22

Production of Documents and things . . . [was] due on January 23 and February 28, 2020,

23

respectively.” (Defs.’ MTC (ECF No. 69) at 3.) “Plaintiff’s written responses to Defendants’

24

Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things were due on February 13,

25

2020.” (Id.) Despite repeated meet and confer efforts, “Plaintiff still has not provided any

26

written responses to Defendants’ requests[.]” (Id.)

27
28

Defendants’ motion seeks an order compelling plaintiff’s responses “to either Defendants’
First Set or Third Set of Requests for Production and Defendants’ Second Set of Requests for
1

1

Production” and sanctions in the amount of $2,640 for attorney’s fees incurred in bringing the

2

motion. (Id. at 7-8.) Defendants’ request is supported by a declaration from defendants’ counsel,

3

Deputy Attorney General Gary Ostrick. (Ostrick Decl. (ECF No. 69-2) at 2-6.)

4

Defendants’ motion was filed pursuant to Local Rule 251(e). (Id. at 2.) Local Rule

5

251(e) provides, in relevant part, that “when there has been a complete and total failure to

6

respond to a discovery request,” the parties are excepted from the requirement of filing a Joint

7

Statement re Discovery Disagreement. Instead, after the moving party has filed and noticed the

8

motion for hearing “[t]he responding party shall file a response thereto not later than seven (7)

9

days before the hearing date.” Here, the time for plaintiff to file a response has expired and

10

plaintiff has not filed any response to defendants’ motion. 1 Given plaintiff’s complete failure to

11

respond to defendants’ motion, despite notice and ample opportunity, defendants’ unopposed

12

motion will be granted and the June 5, 2020 hearing vacated.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. Defendants’ May 11, 2020 motion to compel (ECF No. 69) is granted:

15

2. Within twenty-eight days of the date of this order plaintiff shall produce responses to

16

either defendants’ First or Third Set of Requests for Production as well as to defendants’ Second

17

Set of Requests for Production;

18
19

3. Within twenty-eight days of the date of this order plaintiff’s counsel shall pay
defendants $2,640 for defendants’ attorney’s fees 2; and

20
21

4. The June 5, 2020 hearing of defendants’ motion is vacated.
DATED: June 1, 2020

22

/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24

DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.civil\bonner0445.mtc.no.opp.ord

25
26
27
28

1

This is not the first time plaintiff has failed to respond to an order of this court. (ECF No. 68.)
Given the failure of plaintiff’s counsel to file any response to the motion, the sanction award
shall be paid by plaintiff’s counsel alone and not passed on to plaintiff.
2
2