Jenkins v. City of Vallejo et al
Filing
52
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/6/2024 GRANTING 45 Motion to Compel. Within seven days of the date of this order defendants shall produce responsive documents; The 2/9/2024 hearing of Plaintiff's Motion is VACATED; and Within fourteen days of the date of this order defense counsel shall pay plaintiff $750 as a sanction for their conduct. (Mena-Sanchez, L) Modified on 2/7/2024 (Mena-Sanchez, L).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEYANA JENKINS,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:19-cv-1896 TLN DB
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On November 3, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and noticed the motion for
18
hearing before the undersigned on December 8, 2023, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF
19
No. 45.) On November 22, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Statement re Discovery Dispute
20
pursuant to Local Rule 251. (ECF No. 46.) Therein, the parties disagreed as to whether they had
21
met and conferred after defendants made their most recent document production. (Id. at 2, 3-4.)
22
Accordingly, on December 5, 2023, the undersigned issued an order continuing the
23
hearing of plaintiff’s motion to January 12, 2024. (ECF No 47 at 2.) The parties were also
24
ordered to meet and confer on or before December 22, 2023, and to withdraw the motion to
25
compel or file an updated Joint Statement on or before December 29, 2023. (Id.)
26
On December 29, 2023, plaintiff filed their portion of the Joint Statement. (ECF No. 48.)
27
Therein plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the parties met and conferred on December 12, 2023. (Id.
28
at 2.) Thereafter, on December 12, 2023, and December 15, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel emailed
1
1
defense counsel and received no response. (Id.) These assertions are supported by evidence.
2
(ECF No. 48-2 at 4-10.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent additional emails thereafter and received no
3
response. (ECF No. 48 at 2.) Defense counsel filed nothing in response to either the
4
undersigned’s December 5, 2023 order or the representations made in the December 29, 2023
5
filing by plaintiff’s counsel.
6
Accordingly, on January 8, 2024, the undersigned issued an order continuing the hearing
7
of plaintiff’s motion to February 9, 2024, and ordering defense counsel to show cause as to why
8
counsel should not be sanctioned. (ECF No. 49.) On January 19, 2024, defense counsel filed a
9
declaration in response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 50.) Therein, defense counsel
10
explained that counsel was “on vacation starting December 22, 2023, through the new year,” and
11
was “not checking emails or deadlines while . . . out.” (Id. at 2.)
12
On February 1, 2024, the parties filed an Updated Statement re: Discovery Dispute. (ECF
13
No. 51.) Therein, plaintiff’s counsel states that after defense counsel filed the declaration on
14
January 19, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel sent defense counsel emails on January 19, 2024, and
15
January 24, 2024. (Id. at 2-3.) Once again defense counsel did not respond. (Id. at 3.) Again,
16
plaintiff has supported these assertions with evidence. (ECF No. 51-3; ECF No. 51-4.)
Defense counsel characterizes plaintiff’s statements as “superfluous, perhaps disparaging
17
18
remarks[.]” (ECF No. 51 at 4.) Counsel does not articulate which statements are “perhaps
19
disparaging.” The information certainly is not superfluous. The undersigned shares plaintiff’s
20
counsel’s concern about the lack of attention and responsiveness defense counsel has displayed,
21
as well as the failure to comply with the Local Rules. While disruption due to vacation and/or
22
holidays is entirely understandable, defense counsel’s explanation that they were out “through the
23
new year,” does not explain defense counsel’s continued unresponsiveness or why counsel did
24
not file anything prior to the undersigned’s order to show cause issued on January 8, 2024.
Moreover, defense counsel states that “amended responses will be provided by February
25
26
27, 2024.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel was filed on November 3, 2023. In the
27
updated Statement re: Discovery Dispute, defense counsel provides no substantive basis to
28
////
2
1
oppose plaintiff’s motion. Nor has defense counsel’s conduct inspired confidence that a future
2
production will be responsive and timely.
3
“The discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely unsupervised by the
4
district court.” Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018).
5
“When that cooperation breaks down, the district court has broad discretion to regulate discovery
6
conduct and, if needed, impose a wide array of sanctions.” Infanzon v. Allstate Insurance
7
Company, 335 F.R.D. 305, 311 (C.D. Cal. 2020). Moreover, the counsel’s failure to comply with
8
the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized
9
by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1. Plaintiff’s November 3, 2023 motion to compel (ECF No. 45) is granted;
12
2. Within seven days of the date of this order defendants shall produce responsive
13
documents;
14
3. The February 9, 2024 hearing of plaintiff’s motion is vacated; and
15
4. Within fourteen days of the date of this order defense counsel shall pay plaintiff $750
16
as a sanction for their conduct.
17
Dated: February 6, 2024
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.civil/jenkins1896.mtc.sanc.ord
27
28
3
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?