Arellano v. Blahnik

Filing 112

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 110 ; and Granting in Part and Denying in Part (Without Prejudice) Motion for Discovery Sanctions [Doc. No. 97 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 7/30/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL ARRELLANO,

Case No.: 16cv2412-CAB-DHB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 110]
AND GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART (WITHOUT
PREJUDICE) MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY SANCTIONS [Doc. No.
97]

BLAHNIK,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18

On January 17, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Discovery Sanctions for

19

Failure to Respond to Written Discovery and Failure to be Deposed. [Doc. No. 97.] On

20

February 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 99.] On February 25, 2019,

21

Defendants filed a reply. [Doc. No. 100.] On March 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply.

22

[Doc. Nos. 105, 106.]

23

On June 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg prepared a Report and

24

Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the motion for orders directing Plaintiff

25

to provide complete responses to written discovery and sit for his deposition be granted,

26

and that all other motions for discovery sanctions be denied. [Doc. No. 110.] The Report

27

also ordered that any objections were to be filed by July 19, 2019. [Report at 23.] To

28
1
16cv2412-CAB-DHB

1

date, no objection has been filed, nor have there been any requests for an extension of

2

time in which to file an objection.

3

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and

4

recommendation and a respondent’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the

5

Federal rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are

6

filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s report and

7

recommendation. The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report and

8

Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may

9

“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by

10

the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge

11

must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is

12

made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

13

Cir.2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute

14

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the

15

parties themselves accept as correct.” Id. In the absence of timely objection, the Court

16

“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

17

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing

18

Campbel v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

19

Here, neither party has timely filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed it,

20

the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.

21

Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Berg’s Report and

22

Recommendation; (2) DENIES (without prejudice) the motion for terminating sanctions;

23

(3) DENIES (without prejudice) the motion for the evidence preclusion sanction; (4)

24

DENIES (without prejudice) the motion for monetary sanctions; and (5) GRANTS the

25
26
27
28
2
16cv2412-CAB-DHB

1

motion for orders directing Plaintiff to provide complete responses to written discovery

2

and sit for his deposition.1

3

Plaintiff is again advised that his continued, willful failure to fulfill his

4

discovery obligations in this case will result in the imposition of sanctions, including

5

the dismissal of this case.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 30, 2019

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Defendants shall submit specific proposed orders with such directions to Magistrate Judge Berg for his
review and signature.
3
16cv2412-CAB-DHB