Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02712/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02712-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES G. REECE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMRICK BASI, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-2712 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S. § 1983. 

Pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff’s requests for a default judgment against defendants 

Villote and Lahey, ECF Nos. 51, 57; (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents 

from defendant Basi, ECF No. 52; and (3) defendants Villote’s and Lahey’s motion to withdraw 

admissions arising from failure to serve timely responses and for a nunc pro tunc extension of 

time to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests, ECF No. 58. The motions have been fully 

briefed. 

 BACKGROUND 

This matter proceeds on plaintiff’s claims for money damages against defendants Dr. 

Amrik Basi and Nurses Lahey and Villote, on grounds that they provided him with inadequate 

medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment at California State Prison-Solano (CSP)-

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

Solano.1 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Basi prescribed a medication called Terazosin for 

plaintiff’s enlarged prostate, without advising plaintiff of the medication’s risks or explaining the 

surgical alternatives. As a side-effect of the Terazosin, plaintiff developed a blood clot that 

caused blindness in his left eye. Defendants Basi, Lahey and Villote failed to treat the blindness, 

which therefore become permanent. See ECF Nos. 1, 31 at 2. 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

Background 

Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents from defendant Basi. Motion to 

Compel (“MTC”), ECF No. 52. He appends the eighteen requests that were contained in his 

requests for production of documents (RFPs), Set One, and contends that defendant has objected 

to each and failed to produce any responsive documents. The court construes the motion as 

seeking compelled responses to each of the eighteen requests. Plaintiff has not provided 

defendant’s objections to the requests, but defendant has submitted his responses. Opposition 

(“Opp.”), ECF No. 56. 

The court’s review of this dispute is complicated by the fact that each of plaintiff’s 

requests for production begins with a reference to a concurrently served request for admission, 

e.g., “If your response to Request for Admission No. 1, served concurrently with these 

interrogatories, is anything other than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents 

that support your [contrary] contentions. . .” RFP No. 1, ECF No. 52, at 14. Plaintiff has not 

provided the requests for admissions that correlate with his requests for production, however. 

The court has attempted to discern the subject matter at issue in each request for production, 

based on the parties’ submissions related to the motion. As the moving party, however, plaintiff 

must bear the consequences if his motion to compel inadequately described the information he 

seeks. 

Standards Governing Motion 

The scope of discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) is broad. Discovery may be obtained 

 

1

 Defendants Naku and Traquina have been dismissed. ECF Nos., 31, 36. 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 2 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense -- including the 

existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any documents or other tangible 

things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.” Id. 

Discovery may extend to relevant information not admissible at trial “if the discovery appears 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.; see also Oppenheimer 

Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). “Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very 

broadly.” Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir.1998). 

The court, however, may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” 

or can be obtained from another source “that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive”; or if the party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery”; or if the proposed discovery is overly burdensome. Fed.R.Civ.P. 

26(b)(2)(C)(I), (ii) and (iii). 

“The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 

satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). The party opposing discovery then has the 

burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, 

explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794 at * 1 (S.D.Cal. 

May 14, 2009). The part opposing discovery is “required to carry a heavy burden of showing” 

why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) permits each party to serve the opposing party with 

document requests within the scope of Rule 26(b) that are “relevant to the subject matter involved 

in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). In responding to Rule 34 requests, “the response must either 

state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to 

the request, including the reasons.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B). Under Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iv), “[a] 

party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or 

inspection” if “a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted—or fails to permit 

inspection—as requested under Rule 34.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 3 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

The Requests for Production of Documents 

Request for Production No. 1 

RFP No. 1: If your response to Request for Admission No. 1, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contentions that you Amrick [sic] Basi and the second 

unknown doctor did not work on 2-14, 15-2007 in the four yard 

annex clinic. 

MTC, ECF No. 52, at 14. 

 Response to Request for Production No. 1 

Response: Objection. This Request lacks foundation and is vague 

and ambiguous in its entirety, as defendant is not making any such 

contention. Discovery continues. 

Opp., ECF No. 56, at 5. 

 Discussion 

It is unclear from the documents plaintiff has provided whether the defendant has denied 

working in the specified area on the specified dates, with or without another unidentified doctor. 

Defendant’s response indicates that he has not. Accordingly, no further response can be ordered. 

Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to RFP No. 1. 

Request for Production No. 2

RFP No. 2: If your response to Request for Admission No. 1, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents with 

the name of the unknown second doctor who worked with you on 

Feb. 14, 15, 2007, in the four yard annex clinic. 

MTC at 14. 

 Response to Request for Production No. 2 

Response: Objection. This request lacks foundation, calls for speculation and is 

vague and ambiguous in its entirety, as defendant is not making any such 

contention. Discovery continues. 

Opp. at 5. 

 Discussion 

 Plaintiff is plainly seeking the identity of another doctor who was involved in his care (or 

lack of care) on February 14 and 15, 2007. An interrogatory would have been a more efficient 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 4 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5

way of seeking the information, which is discoverable. Defendant Basi is ordered to produce any 

documentation within his possession, custody or control identifying any other doctor who worked 

on the four yard annex clinic at any time on February 14 and/or 15 of 2007. 

Request for Production No. 3

RFP No. 3: If your response to Request for Admission No. 2, served concurrently 

with these interrogatories, is anything other than an unqualified admission, please 

produce all documents that support your contention that you were not the Plaintiff 

[sic] primary care provider on 12-26-2006, and that you Amrick [sic] Basi did not 

prescribed [sic] (Terazosin) to the Plaintiff and any document that proves you fully 

explained the serious side effects of taking Terazosin to Plaintiff. 

MTC at 14. 

 Response to Request for Production No. 3 

Response: Objection. This Request is improperly compound, lacks 

foundation and is vague and ambiguous in its entirety, as defendant 

is not making any such contention. Without waiving said objects, 

and subject thereto, after conducting a diligent search and 

reasonable inquiry, defendant does not have any such documents in 

his possession. Discovery continues. 

Opp. at 6. 

 Discussion 

 Because plaintiff has not provided his Requests for Admission or defendant’s responses, 

the court cannot determine to what extent, if any, defendant Basi (1) has denied being plaintiff’s 

primary care provider on December 26, 2006, (2) has denied prescribing plaintiff Terazosin, or 

(3) has claimed that he did or did not explain potential serious side effects. The objections imply 

that this defendant does not deny being plaintiff’s primary care provider or prescribing him 

Terazosin. It is likely that plaintiff already has such documentation as exists regarding the 

December 26, 2006, interaction. See, e.g., ECF No. 1-1 at 7, 18. In any case, despite his 

objections, defendant Basi represents that he has conducted a diligent search and reasonable 

inquiry and has no documents responsive to plaintiff’s request. 

Nonetheless, to ensure that plaintiff is not denied necessary discovery because he has 

inartfully crafted his requests, the court will order defendant Basi to produce any and all records 

that document his prescription of Terazosin to the plaintiff in December of 2006 and/or in January 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 5 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

6

of 2007, and any document(s) that reflect discussion of side-effects and/or alternatives. 

Defendant Basi must produce any such documents within his possession, custody or control, 

regardless of whether plaintiff has or has had access to such records by other means. The motion 

as to RFP No. 3, as modified herein, is granted. 

 Requests for Production Nos. 4 through 6 

 The following requests received the identical objection: 

RFP No. 4: If your response to Request for Admission No. 3, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi fully explained 

the prostate surgery procedure to Plaintiff on 12-26-2006. 

RFP No. 5: If your response to Request for Admission No. 4, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi did not have a 

constitutional duty to provide Plaintiff with prompt, proper, or any 

medical treatment upon request by Plaintiff or other prisoners on 2-

14,15, 2007. 

RFP No. 6: If your response to Request for Admission No. 5, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi did not take the 

cheap way out by prescribing Terazosin on 12-26-2006 instead of 

prescribing or recommending the prostate surgery. 

MTC at 15. 

 Response to Requests for Production Nos. 4 through 6 

Response to RFP Nos. 4-6: Objection. This Request is vague and 

ambiguous in its entirety, as defendant is not making any such 

contention. 

Opp. at 6-7. 

 Discussion 

 Defendant Basi’s objection to these RFPs is reasonable in light of the argumentative 

nature of the requests, the evidently unfounded assumptions on which they are based, and the 

overall lack of clarity in the phrasing. The substance of RFP No. 4 has been addressed in relation 

to RFP No. 3 No further response with respect to RFP Nos. 4-6 will be compelled. 

//// 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 6 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7

 Requests for Production Nos. 7 through 9 

 The following RFPs were received the same response (as set forth below): 

RFP No. 7: If your response to Request for Admission No. 6, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi, did care about 

providing Plaintiff with prompt, proper medical care on 12-26-2006 

and that your actions were not deliberate indifference to Plaintiff 

[sic] most serious medical condition. 

RFP No. 8: If your response to Request for Admission No. 7, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi, did not refuse 

to provide Plaintiff with medical treatment on 2-14, 15, 2007, and 

the you did provide Plaintiff with medical treatment in 2-14, 15-

2007. 

RFP No. 9: If your response to Request for Admission No. 8, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi, and the 

unknown second doctor did not stand four feet away from Plaintiff 

on 2-14, 15, 2007 listening to him explain his medical condition to 

first LVN Mallari and then nurse Lahey then you and the unknown 

second doctor refused to provide Plaintiff with any medical 

treatment. 

MTC at 16-17. 

 Response to Requests for Production Nos. 7 through 9 

Response to RFP Nos. 7-9: After conducting a diligent search and 

reasonable inquiry, defendant does not have any such documents in 

his possession. Discovery continues. 

Opp. at 7-8. 

 Discussion 

 If defendant Basi has possession, custody or control of any documentation demonstrating 

that he did provide medical treatment to plaintiff on February 14-15, 2007 (rather than 

documentation showing he did not), he must produce it to plaintiff. Defendant Basi must produce 

such documents regardless of whether plaintiff has or has had access to such records by other 

means. In all other respects, the motion as to these requests must be denied. 

 Request for Production No. 10 

RFP No. 10: If your response to Request for Admission No. 9, 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 7 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

8

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi were not the 

Plaintiff [sic] primary care provider on 2-14, 15, 2007. 

MTC at 17. 

 Response to Request for Production No. 10 

Response: Objection. This Request is incomplete and unintelligible in its entirety. 

In addition, it is vague and ambiguous, as defendant is not making any such 

contention. 

Opp. at 8. 

 

 Discussion 

As defendant Basi evidently does not contend that he was not plaintiff’s primary care 

provider on February 14-15, 2007, he is unlikely to have documents proving that negative. 

Further discovery cannot be compelled with respect to these requests as framed. However, 

defendant Basi is ordered to produce any and all documents within his possession, custody or 

control that demonstrate he was plaintiff’s primary care provider in February of 2007. 

Request for Production No. 11

RFP No. 11: If your response to Request for Admission No. 10, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi did your 

constitutional duty and declared a medical emergency on either 2-

14, 15, 2007 and sent Plaintiff to the prison primary clinic on 2-14-

2007 where the prison ophthalmologist was working and who 

would have examined Plaintiff left eye and sent plaintiff to U.C. 

Davis Medical [C]enter in Sacramento, that the outcome would 

have been the same, Plaintiff lost [sic] of his vision. 

MTC at 17. 

Response to Request for Production No. 11

Response: Objection. This Request is vague and ambiguous in its 

entirety, as defendant is not making that contention at this time. 

Discovery continues. 

Opp. at 9. 

 Discussion 

 Since defendant Basi does not contend that he took any of the action specified in this 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 8 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

9

request, documentation showing that he did is unlikely to exist. The motion as to this request is 

denied. 

 Request for Production No.12

RFP No. 12: If your response to Request for Admission No. 11, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that because of your inaction in not 

providing Plaintiff with any medical treatment on 2-14, 15, 2007 

Plaintiff injuries associated with his eye condition from 2-14, 15, 

2007 onward [sic]. 

MTC at 17-18. 

Response to Request for Production No. 12

 Response: Objection. This Request is unintelligible in its entirety. 

Opp. at 9. 

 Discussion 

 Defendant is correct that this request is unintelligible. Accordingly, the motion as to RFP 

No. 12 is denied. 

 Request for Production No.13

RFP No. 13: If your response to Request for Admission No. 12, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi did not have 

two opportunities on 2-14, 15, 2007 to provide Plaintiff with 

prompt, proper medical treatment for his serious left eye condition. 

That you did not refuse Plaintiff medical treatment and therefore 

you are not responsible for his blindness. 

MTC at 18. 

Response to Request for Production No. 13

Response: Objection. This Request is vague and ambiguous, as 

defendant is not making any such contention. After conducting a 

diligent search and reasonable inquiry, defendant does not have 

documents in his possession that support his contention that he did 

not refuse to provide medical treatment to plaintiff at any time. 

Discovery continues. 

Opp. at 9. 

//// 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 9 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10

 Discussion 

 Defendant Basi has responded that he does not have any responsive documents. However, 

to ensure that plaintiff is not denied necessary discovery because he has inartfully crafted his 

requests, the court will order defendant Basi to produce any documentation in his possession, 

custody or control that demonstrates any medical treatment he did provide to plaintiff related to 

plaintiff’s prostate or eye, including documentation of the dates, times and nature of the medical 

treatment provided. The motion as to this request, as modified, is granted. 

 Requests for Production No.14 through 16, and Responses

RFP No. 14: If your response to Request for Admission No. 13, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that there were no register[ed] nurse [sic] 

working in the four yard annex clinic on 2-14-2007 with you and 

the unknown second doctor. 

MTC at 18. 

Response: This Request is vague and ambiguous in its entirety, as 

defendant is not making any such contention. Discovery continues. 

Opp. at 10. 

RFP No. 15: If your response to Request for Admission No. 14, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that you Amrick [sic] Basi did not refuse 

to provide Plaintiff with medical treatment on 2-15-2007 while 

Plaintiff and [N]urse Lahey discussed his medical condition while 

you and the second unknown doctor stood four feet away and did 

nothing to help Lahey and the you did not refuse Plaintiff medical 

treatment two days in a row, 2-14, 15-2007. 

MTC at 18-19. 

Response: This Request is vague and ambiguous, as defendant is 

not making any such contention. After conducting a diligent search 

and reasonable inquiry, defendant does not have documents in his 

possession that support his contention that he did not refuse to 

provide medical treatment to plaintiff at any time. Discovery 

continues. 

Opp. at 10. 

 RFP No. 16: If your response to Request for Admission No. 15, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 10 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

11

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents that 

support your contention that Plaintiff did not have a Constitutional 

right to know all of the serious side effects to the medication 

(TERAZOSIN) you prescribed nor to be fully informed about the 

procedure concerning prostate surgery and that it was not your job 

to provide Plaintiff with such information. 

MTC at 19. 

Response: Objection. This Request is vague and ambiguous in its 

entirety, as defendant is not making any such contention. 

Discovery continues. 

Opp. at 11. 

 Discussion 

No further responses can be compelled to the very awkwardly framed RFP Nos. 14-16. 

Requests for Production No 17 and 18, and Responses

RFP No. 17: If your response to Request for Admission No. 13, 

served concurrently with these interrogatories, is anything other 

than an unqualified admission, please produce all documents with 

the name of the unknown nurse who worked in the four yard annex 

clinic on 2-14-2007. 

MTC at 19. 

Response: After conducting a diligent search and reasonable 

inquiry, defendant does not have any such documents in his 

possession referencing the names of the nurses that cared for 

plaintiff on any date, other than plaintiff’s medical records which 

are equally available to plaintiff. 

Opp. at 11. 

RFP No. 18: Produce any and all documents containing the names 

of the unknown doctor and unknown nurse who worked on 2-14-

2007 (Nurse) and 2-14, 15-2007 (Doctor). 

MTC at 20. 

Response: After conducting a diligent search and reasonable 

inquiry, defendant does not have any such documents in his 

possession referencing the names of the physicians that treated 

plaintiff on any date, other than plaintiff’s medical records which 

are equally available to plaintiff. 

 Discussion 

 Defendant Basi contends in response to RFP Nos. 17 and 18 that documents identifying 

other medical personnel who worked at the clinic on Febuary14 and 15, 2007, are equally 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 11 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

12

available to plaintiff. Defendant has already been instructed, however, to produce any such 

documentation in his possession, custody or control with respect to other physicians. See 

discussion re RFP No. 2. In the interests of consistency and completeness, Defendant Basi is also 

ordered to produce any documents containing the names of any nurses working at that clinic on 

February 14, 2007. The motion as to RFP No. 17 is granted to that extent. The motion as to RFP 

No. 18 is denied as duplicative of RFP Nos. 2 and 17. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 On February 13, 2014, plaintiff filed an affidavit requesting entry of default as to 

defendants Lahey and Villote. ECF No. 47. The Clerk declined to enter default, as the 

defendants had answered. ECF No. 48. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Clerk’s action. 

ECF No. 51. 

 Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs the Clerk to enter a party’s 

default “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to 

plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit, or otherwise . . . .” Defendants 

Lahey and Villote filed an answer on November 20, 2013. Docket Entry No. 42. The answer 

was a pleading that demonstrated the defendants’ intention to defend the lawsuit. Because the 

defendants had appeared and responded to the complaint, an entry of default was unavailable. 

See Direct Mail Specialists v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 

1988). Accordingly, the Clerk acted correctly and the request for reconsideration must be denied. 

 It appears from plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and briefing of the discovery 

disputes that he has misunderstood the difference between a request for entry of default, which is 

governed by Rule 55, and a motion for terminating sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2). Plaintiff seeks 

a default judgment (not entry of default) on grounds that defendants failed to respond to discovery 

requests. Because the relief plaintiff seeks is properly understood as a discovery sanction, the 

court will return to the issue after addressing defendants’ motion for withdrawal of admissions 

and for an extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. 

//// 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 12 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS 

 Background 

Plaintiff served his interrogatories, requests for admission (RFA), and requests for 

production of documents (RFP) on defendants Villote and Lahey on December 9, 2013. Pursuant 

to an extension of time granted by the undersigned, respondents were to serve their responses no 

later than February 26, 2014. ECF No. 50. The responses were not served until April 25, 2014. 

ECF No. 58, Jamison Dec. ¶ 10 & Exhibits A, C. Defendants move for a nunc pro tunc extension 

of time that would render the responses timely, and to withdraw admissions effected by operation 

of Rule 36(a)(3). 

Standards 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 provides in relevant part as follows: 

[(a)](3) A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being 

served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the 

requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the 

matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer 

time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be 

ordered by the court. 

 . . . 

(b) A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established 

unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn 

or amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the court may permit 

withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of 

the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it 

would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending 

the action on the merits. An admission under this rule is not an 

admission for any other purpose and cannot be used against the 

party in any other proceeding. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) provides that when an act is to be done within a specific time, “the 

court may, for good cause, extend the time: . . . (B) on motion made after the time has expired if 

the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” The U.S. Supreme Court has established a 

four-part balancing test to determine “excusable neglect.” See Pioneer Investment Services Co. 

v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). The Pioneer test applies to 

all excusable neglect inquiries presented under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pincay v. 

Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 961 (2005). The 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 13 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

14

Pioneer factors include: (1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of 

delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including 

whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the moving party’s 

conduct was in good faith. Id. The weighing of these factors is left to the discretion of the 

district court. Id. at 860. 

 Discussion 

 Defendants have submitted a declaration of counsel which states that the discovery 

responses were completed and signed on February 7, 2014 and provided to counsel’s secretary to 

be served on or about February 10, 2014. ECF No. 58, Jamison Dec. ¶5. When counsel received 

notice of plaintiff’s February 14, 2014 “affidavit for entry of default,” which alleged that plaintiff 

had not received the discovery, counsel emailed his secretary and was assured that the responses 

had been served on February 12, 2014. Id. ¶¶ 6-7 & Ex. B (email exchange). Counsel assumed 

that plaintiff simply had not yet received the responses that had been served. Id. ¶ 7. When 

counsel received and reviewed plaintiff’s second request for entry of default, which was filed on 

April 21, 2014, he checked the file himself and was unable to locate any proofs of service. Id. ¶ 

9. Counsel’s further inquiries with his secretary revealed that the responses had not been served 

after all, but inadvertently had been filed away with the case materials. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. The discovery 

responses, which are indeed dated February 7, 2014, were then served by mail on April 25, 2014. 

Id. ¶ 10 & Ex. A (discovery responses), Ex. C (proof of service). 

 These facts present a classic case of excusable neglect. In Pincay, supra, the Ninth Circuit 

found excusable neglect where a paralegal responsible for calendaring filing deadlines misread 

the applicable rule, accordingly miscalculated the deadline, and incorrectly told the attorney that a 

notice of appeal did not need to be filed for sixty days. Pincay, 389 F.3d at 855. The Ninth 

Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the lawyer’s delegation of the matter to a paralegal did not 

constitute inexcusable neglect. The court went on to affirm the finding that the attorney’s error 

was excusable because there had been no prejudice and only a small delay, the delay was caused 

by carelessness, and there was no evidence of bad faith. Pincay, 389 F.3d at 855-56. This case 

presents analogous facts. The delay in service of the discovery requests was caused by 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 14 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

15

carelessness and not by bad faith. The lawyer reasonably relied on his secretary to serve the 

responses, and made reasonable inquiries to ensure that the discovery obligation had been met. 

Counsel served the outstanding discovery promptly after discovering the error. 

 Any possible prejudice to plaintiff is cured by providing him an opportunity to challenge 

the substantive sufficiency of the discovery responses and to supplement his pending motion for 

summary judgment. Under the circumstances, the court finds good cause to modify the 

scheduling order accordingly. The resulting delay, while unfortunate, is not atypical of prisoner 

cases and will not have a negative impact on litigation of this case. For all these reasons, the 

defendants have demonstrated excusable neglect within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 

Moreover, it would be unfair to defendants Villote and Lahey if their counsel’s error, which is 

attributable to excusable neglect, resulted in admissions that relieved plaintiff of his burden of 

proof. Withdrawal of the admissions will promote the presentation of the merits of the claims 

and, in light of the lack of prejudice to plaintiff, is therefore appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

36(b). 

 For all these reasons, defendants’ motion to withdraw admissions and for a nunc pro tunc 

extension of time to served discovery responses is granted. 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS 

As noted above, plaintiff seeks default judgment against defendants Villote and Lahey for 

non-compliance with the rules of discovery and the operative scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(d)(1)(A)(ii) provides that the court may impose sanctions on a party for failing to respond to 

properly served discovery requests. Potential sanctions include “rendering a default judgment 

against the disobedient party. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vi). A motion for discovery 

sanctions must be accompanied by certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or 

attempted to confer with the party failing to act in an attempt to obtain the responses without 

court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(B). Plaintiff has not filed the required certification. 

Default judgment is the harshest of the Rule 37(b) sanctions, and due process requires that 

it may not be imposed unless noncompliance with discovery procedures is due to willfulness or 

bad faith. Baker v. Limber, 647 F.2d 912, 918 (9th Cir. 1981). Because there is no indication of 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 15 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

16

willfulness or bad faith here, the court need not consider the other factors that must be considered 

before declaring a default as a discovery sanction.2 The undersigned has already determined that 

defendants’ failure to timely serve discovery responses was the product of excusable neglect. 

Counsel did not willfully refuse to provide responses, he prepared and signed them and thought 

they had been served. The error was cured as soon as it was discovered, and plaintiff has now 

received responses to his discovery requests. 

 Plaintiff’s frustration with the defendants in this matter is understandable, but the only 

prejudice he has suffered is some delay. Delay is an insufficient basis for imposition of default as 

a discovery sanction. Adriana Int’l. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against defendants Villote and Lahey, construed as a 

motion for sanctions under Rule 37, is therefore denied. Plaintiff will be granted additional time 

to bring any motion to compel with respect to the discovery responses at issue. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, ECF No. 52, is granted in part to the extent 

specified above regarding Requests for Production Nos. 2-3, 7-10, 13, and 17, and is otherwise 

denied. Defendant Basi shall serve further responses and any responsive documents in 

accordance with this order within fourteen (14) days; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 51, is denied; 

 3. Defendants Villote and Lahey’s motion to withdraw admissions arising from failure to 

serve timely discovery responses, ECF No. 49, is granted and the deadline for moving defendants 

to serve responses to discovery requests is extended to April 25, 2014, nunc pro tunc; 

 4. Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against defendants Villote and Lahey as a 

discovery sanction, ECF No. 57, is denied; 

 

2

 The Ninth Circuit has set forth five factors a district court must consider before declaring a 

default or ordering dismissal of a case: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the other party; (4) 

the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 

drastic sanctions. Adriana Int’l. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations 

omitted). 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 16 of 17
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

17

 5. Discovery is re-opened for the limited purpose of permitting plaintiff to bring a motion 

to compel discovery within sixty days of the date of this order, should he choose to, with respect 

to the discovery responses provided by defendants Villote and Lahey; 

6. The dispositive motion deadline is hereby re-set for October 16, 2014. Plaintiff will 

have until that date to supplement his motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 49, should he so 

choose, and defendants must file any cross-motion for summary judgment no later than October 

16, 2014. Oppositions by all parties will be due thirty days after the dispositive motion deadline 

and replies will be due within twenty-one days of the service of the parties’ oppositions. 

DATED: June 5, 2014 

Case 2:11-cv-02712-TLN-AC Document 65 Filed 06/06/14 Page 17 of 17