Santos v. Allen et al

Filing 266

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 257 Motion for Order Designating Facts be Taken as Established for Evasive Discovery Responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/10/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
RONALD R. SANTOS,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01251-KJD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 257)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking an order designating facts to be taken as

17

established for evasive discovery responses. Docket No. 257. Defendants filed a response, and Plaintiff

18

filed a reply. Docket No. 261, 264. The Court finds the motion properly resolved with oral argument.

19

See LR 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

20

I.

Background

21

On April 21, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to provide further

22

responses to his contention interrogatories. Docket No. 244. The Court overruled Defendants’ sole

23

objection: that the interrogatories were improper because they deviated from an interrogatory approved

24

in Thomas v. Cate, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1030 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Id. at 1-3. The Court rejected

25

Defendants’ argument, as the interrogatories did not seek a legal conclusion unrelated to the facts of the

26

case. Id. at 3 (citing Thomas, 715 F. Supp. 2d at 1030); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2) (“An

27

interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for . . . contention that relates to . . . the

28

1

application of law to fact”). Therefore, the Court ordered Defendants to provide supplemental responses

2

to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Docket No. 244 at 4.

3

Defendants provided supplemental responses. Docket Nos. 261-1, 261-2. Plaintiff contends

4

these responses violate the Court’s order. Docket No. 257 at 3. Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to

5

sanction Defendants by ordering that the matters covered in the interrogatories be taken as established

6

for purposes of the action. Id.

7

II.

Discussion

8

If a party fails to obey an order to provide discovery, the court may impose sanctions, including

9

“directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for

10

purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i). Orders resolving

11

a motion to compel fall squarely within Rule 37(b)(2)(A). Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 787

12

(9th Cir. 2011). A determination that such an order was disobeyed is entitled to considerable weight

13

because the trial judge is best equipped to assess the circumstances of the non-compliance. Halaco

14

Eng’g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 379 (9th Cir. 1988).

15

Plaintiff’s interrogatories asked Defendants Scilia and Morrow to provide the basis on which

16

they disagree with his contention that a disputed prison policy is not the least restrictive alternative. See

17

Docket Nos. 261-1, 261-2. After overruling Defendants’ objection, the Court ordered that, if

18

Defendants disagreed with Plaintiff’s contention, then they should say so and briefly explain why.

19

Docket No. 244 at 3 (citing AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., 2014 WL 7188779, *5 (N.D. Cal.

20

Dec. 16, 2014)).

21

Here, Defendants responded as ordered. Docket Nos. 261-1, 261-2. Defendants’ responses state

22

both their position and a brief explanation for it. See id. The Court agrees with Defendants that

23

“Plaintiff may use these responses in support of a dispositive motion” as the bases upon which

24

Defendants Scilia and Marrow contend that the disputed policy is the least restrictive alternative.

25

Docket No. 261 at 5. The Court finds that Defendants adequately complied with the Court’s order.

26

Sanctions, therefore, are unwarranted.

27

//

28

//
2

1

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion, Docket No. 257, is DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED: August 10, 2016.

4
5
6

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3