Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01938/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01938-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES M. LANIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OFFICIALS 

ASSOCIATION, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-CV-01938-EPG

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

COMPEL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 46)

Plaintiff James M. Lanier (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”) on 

December 4, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d 

against the San Joaquin Valley Officials Association and the individual members of the Association‟s Board 

of Directors (collectively, the “Defendants”). Id. 

On August 10, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, 

Request to Produce, Request for Admissions and Request for Sanctions, (ECF No. 46), which is now before 

this Court.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 13, 2016, Defendants filed a joint status report indicating that they had not yet received 

any responses to discovery requests from Plaintiff, despite the fact that the discovery requests had been 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 13
2

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

30

served on Plaintiff on April 7, 2016. (ECF No. 39.) On July 18, 2016, the Court held a status 

conference and directed Plaintiff to respond to any outstanding discovery requests propounded on him 

by Defendants no later than August 15, 2016 (for the production of any documents associated with other 

cases that Plaintiff had litigated) and August 1, 2016 (for any other responses). (ECF No. 43.) The 

Court set a discovery hearing on August 23, 2016 and instructed the parties to file a joint statement 

regarding any discovery disagreements no later than August 19, 2016. Finally, the Court extended the 

non-expert discovery cutoff date to August 15, 2016.

On August 2, 2016, Defendants informed the Court that Plaintiff had failed to comply with the 

Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to provide discovery responses by August 1, 2016. Defendants reported 

that they had met and conferred with Plaintiff and that he had informed them that he would not meet his 

deadline. The Court granted Defendants permission to file a motion to compel and a motion for 

sanctions, to be heard on the previously scheduled date of August 23, 2016. On August 10, 2016, 

Defendants filed a motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, requests for production, and 

requests for admissions. (ECF No. 46.) In the motion, Defendants request the Court compel responses 

to the requests and award sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions.

On August 23, 2016, the Court held a discovery hearing on the motion. Plaintiff alleged that he 

had never been served with the motion, despite the fact that Defendants had included a signed proof of 

service with the filing. Defendants also notified the Court that Plaintiff had recently served responses to 

the disputed discovery requests, although Defendants argued that the responses to several of the requests 

were deficient. Because Plaintiff had also filed a motion to compel the day before the hearing, the Court 

elected to allow both parties additional time to file opposition briefing.1 On August 31, 2016, 

Defendants filed Plaintiff’s responses to the discovery requests with attached proofs of service 

indicating that the responses had been served August 10, 2016. (ECF No. 53.) On September 1, 2016, 

Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion and attached supplemental responses that he had 

served on August 26, 2016. (ECF No. 54.) 

Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions is now before the Court. Both parties have 

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is addressed in a separate order.

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 13
3

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

30

submitted briefing on the issues and the Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision 

without further oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move for an order 

“compelling disclosure or discovery” when a responding party has failed to respond to discovery or has 

provided evasive or incomplete responses. The scope of permissible discovery is intentionally broad and 

can include “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). Defendants separately request relief with respect to their: (1) Requests for Production; (2) 

Special Interrogatories; and (3) Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff admits that his responses to each of 

these items were untimely. (Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief at 2:13-17, ECF No. 54.) 

This Court is within its discretion to issue sanctions based solely on Plaintiff’s failure to abide by 

the Court’s order regarding the deadline for responses. Because Plaintiff has served responses, however, 

the Court will review Plaintiff’s responses to determine whether they are deficient before turning to the 

question of sanctions.

A. Requests for Production

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and 

permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated 

documents or tangible things in the responding party=s possession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(a)(1) (quotation marks omitted). In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be 

made, and if no responsive documents or tangible things exist, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1), the responding 

party should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a 

reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence. Uribe v. McKesson, No. 08cv1285 DMS (NLS), 2010 

WL 892093, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2010). Boilerplate objections to requests are inadequate to 

preclude production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B), (C); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 408 F.3d 

1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005).

Defendants propounded 51 requests for production on Plaintiff on April 7, 2016. (ECF No. 53-

1.) On August 10, 2016, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ requests. In response to each request, 

Plaintiff has either produced responsive documents or stated that no such documents exist. These 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 13
4

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

30

responses are proper and it appears that Plaintiff has produced at least some responsive documents. In 

response to two requests, however, Plaintiff objects that the requests are “vague and ambiguous and 

cannot be answered.” These two requests ask for documents reflecting Plaintiff’s ability to provide 

services in competition with Defendant SJVOA:

Request for Production No. 47: All documents evidencing your resources and ability to provide 

equivalent officiating services in the San Joaquin Valley in comparison to SJVOA.

Request for Production No. 48: All documents evidencing the maximum number of games 

officiated by Plaintiff in one season.

Neither of these requests appears to be vague or ambiguous, nor does Plaintiff’s objection 

explain any ambiguity to the extent necessary to understand the objection. Plaintiff’s objections are 

improper and do not provide a basis for failing to respond to the requests.

B. Interrogatories

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b), and an 

interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact 

or the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) (quotation marks omitted). Parties are 

obligated to respond to interrogatories to the fullest extent possible under oath, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), 

and any objections must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 

1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). A responding party is not generally required to conduct extensive research 

to answer an interrogatory, but must make a reasonable effort to respond. Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 

629, 632 (E.D. Cal. 2013); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, No. S-06-2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, *2 

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2007). 

Defendants served 41 interrogatories on Plaintiff on April 7, 2016. (ECF No. 53-1.) Plaintiff 

responded to the interrogatories on August 10, 2016 and supplemented his responses on August 26, 

2016. (ECF No. 53-3.) To some of the interrogatories, Plaintiff appears to have made a reasonable 

effort to respond. Other responses, however, are more troubling. For instance, Interrogatory No. 21

asks:

Do you contend that SJVOA discriminated by raced [sic] regarding who is appointed to 

the SJVOA Board of Directors? If so state:

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 13
5

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

30

a. The name and address of each person who was denied an appointment because of 

race.

b. The name, address and phone number of each person who can testify at trial that 

the SJVOA Board of Directors discriminates by race regarding who is appointed 

to the SJVOA Board of Directors.

c. All names, addresses and phone number of each person who can testify at trial 

that the SJVOA Board of Directors discriminates by race regarding who is 

appointed to the SJVOA Board of Directors.

(ECF No. 53-1.) In response, Plaintiff stated:

YES – to my knowledge, from my own personal experience, and from conversations with 

various officials, of various ethnicities, with many years within SJVOA the Defendants 

[sic] Board of Directors would not, did not promote African American participation at 

any level especially the level of assignor/supervisor/board of director member. (a) that is 

not known to any of the officiating body (b) far too may (c) far too many.

(ECF No. 53-2.) 

Plaintiff later supplemented his response to object that the interrogatory was vague and 

ambiguous. He also changed his answers to (b) and (c) to refer to an exhibit that appears to be a chart 

obtained from the website www.thearbiter.net that is labeled “SJVOA – CBOA – Basketball.” (ECF 

No. 53-3.) In any case, the response plainly does not respond to the interrogatory—it does not identify 

any person who was denied an appointment to the SJVOA Board of Directors on the basis of race.

Similarly, Interrogatory No. 26 asks Plaintiff to “List all instances of discrimination, including 

dates and times, perpetrated by each individually named Defendant against Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 53-1.) 

Plaintiff’s response, on August 10, 2016, is merely “Far too many instances, over my 20 year time 

period, involving various supervisors of different sports, through game scheduling, rejection of ideas in 

helping promote African American officials participation, etc.” (ECF No. 53-2.) This is not responsive 

to the interrogatory—it does not list any specific instances of race discrimination, it does not identify 

any individual Defendants, and it does not provide any information on when these incidents occurred. 

The same problem arises with Interrogatory No. 27, which asks Plaintiff to “Set forth a detailed 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 5 of 13
6

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

30

description including dates, times and person involved in each act of discriminatory conduct which was 

perpetrated by SJVOA against Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 53-1.) Plaintiff again responds “Far too many 

instances, over the 20 years, involving various supervisors of different sports during various seasons of 

the different sports.” (ECF No. 53-2.) As with the previous interrogatory, Plaintiff’s response is wholly 

inadequate and provides Defendants with little or no information on the case. 

Plaintiff even fails to respond to seemingly straightforward interrogatories. Interrogatory No. 

41, for instance, asks Plaintiff to “Set forth all facts including dates, times, locations and persons 

involved which support your contention in paragraph 24(3) of Plaintiff’s Complaint which alleges the 

existence of ‘specific instances of discrimination.’” (ECF No. 53-1.) Plaintiff did not respond to his 

interrogatory initially on August 10, 2016. When he responded on August 26, 2016, he merely objected 

to the interrogatory, saying “Objection, this question is vague and ambiguous and cannot be answered as 

requested.” (ECF No. 53-3.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s objection, there is nothing vague or ambiguous 

about this interrogatory—it merely requests specific information or facts justifying a specific allegation 

in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not complied with his discovery obligations with respect 

to the interrogatories and Defendants are entitled to some form of relief. 

C. Requests for Admissions

AA party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending 

action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the 

application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described 

documents.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). 

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the 

answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the 

substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or 

deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or 

deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a 

reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable 

inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it 

to admit or deny. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 6 of 13
7

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

30

AThe grounds for objecting to a request must be stated,@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5), and with other 

forms of discovery, it is well established that boilerplate objections do not suffice. See, e.g., Thompson 

v. Yates, No. 1:06-cv-00763-RCC, 2011 WL 5975469, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011); Everest 

Indem. Ins. Co. v. Aventine-Tramonti Homeowners Assoc., No. 2:09-cv-1672-RCJ-RJJ, 2011 WL 

3841083, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 29, 2011); Palladini v. City of Milpitas, No. CV 06-00779 JW (HRL), 

2008 WL 1774090, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2008); Medina v. U.P.S., No. C-06-791 JW PVT, 2007 

WL 2123699, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2007); Eastridge Personnel of Las Vegas, Inc. v. Du-Orpilla, 

No. 2:06-cv-00776-KJD-PAL, 2007 WL 1232229, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 26, 2007); A. Farber & Partners, 

Inc. v. Garber, 237 F.R.D. 250, 255 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

Finally, A[t]he requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or 

objection,@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). AUnless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an 

answer be served. On finding that an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either 

that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer must be served.@ Id. Failure to respond to a 

request for an admission in a timely fashion also “results in the automatic admission of the matters 

requested . . . No motion to establish the admissions is needed because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

36(a) is self-executing.” Smith v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., Inc., 662 F.Supp.2d 1199, 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2009), 

quoting FTC v. Medicor LLC, 217 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1053 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “Once admitted, the matter 

‘is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the 

admission.” Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2007), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).

Defendants served 18 requests for admission on Plaintiff on April 7, 2016. (ECF No. 53-1.) In 

the initial requests, Defendants stated, in all caps: “If you fail to comply with the provisions of rule 36 

of the Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to these Requests for Admission, each of the matter for 

which an admission is requested will be deemed admitted.” Id. Plaintiff responded to those requests in 

an untimely fashion on August 8, 2016 (ECF No. 53-2) and supplemented those responses on August 

26, 2016 (ECF No. 83-3). 

This Court has discretion to find that all requests for admission were deemed admitted because 

there was no timely response, nor a response on the Court-ordered deadline. Nevertheless, the Court 

looks to the responses served on August 8 and August 26 as amended answers. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 7 of 13
8

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

30

(“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.”). “The first half of the test in Rule 36(b) is satisfied when 

upholding the admissions would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.” 

Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622, quoting Hadley v. U.S., 45 F.3d 1345, 1347 (9th Cir. 1995). “The party relying 

on the deemed admission has the burden of proving prejudice” with respect to the second half of the test. 

Id. The admissions in dispute would unquestionable eliminate any consideration of the merits of this 

case—Request for Admission No. 4, for example, asks Plaintiff to “Admit that no member of the 

SJVOA Board of Directors verbally discriminated against you based on race.” (ECF No. 53-1.) Nor 

have Defendants made any showing that they would be substantially prejudiced if amendment were 

allowed. Conlon, 474 F.3 at 624 (“We agree with the other courts that have addressed the issue and 

conclude that reliance on a deemed admission in preparing a summary judgment motion does not 

constitute prejudice.”). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s amended responses to the Requests are sufficient. He has 

admitted or denied each of the Requests and, in some cases, provided clarifying information. 

Admittedly, some of Plaintiff’s responses have included unwarranted or improper objections 

(“Objection, this question is vague and ambiguous and cannot be answered as phrased” in response to

Request for Admission No. 18) (ECF No. 53-3.) , but Plaintiff goes on to admit the request. Although 

Plaintiff’s responses were untimely, both with respect to the deadline imposed by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and this Court’s orders, the responses are substantively sufficient.

III. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or 

permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending 

may issue further just orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). “Just orders” may include, among other things, the 

following:

(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken 

as established for the purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims 

or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence;

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 8 of 13
9

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

30

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;

(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; or,

(v) dismissing the action or proceedings in whole or in part.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes the district court, in its discretion, to impose a 

wide range of sanctions when a party fails to comply with the rules of discovery or with court orders 

enforcing those rules.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir.1983), citing Nat'l 

Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976). In addition, Rule 37 provides for 

an award of monetary sanctions: if a party fails to obey a discovery order, the party may be required to 

“pay the reasonable expenses . . . caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or 

other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added). 

Notably, “sanctions may be imposed even for negligent failure to provide discovery.” Fjelstad v. Am.

Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1343 (9th Cir.1985), citing Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420, 1427 

(9th Cir.1985); Marquis v. Chrysler Corp., 577 F.2d 624, 642 (9th Cir.1978).

A. Terminating Sanctions

A court is permitted to impose the sanction of dismissal or default under Rule 37 only in 

“extreme circumstances” where the violation is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” In re 

Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir.1996). In determining whether to dismiss an action or enter 

default pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C), a district court should consider five factors:

(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 [opposing party]; (4) the public policy 

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

sanctions.’ Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997), quoting Malone v. 

U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1987). Where a court order is violated, the 

first and second factors will favor sanctions and the fourth will cut against them. Id.

Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.2004).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that this multi-factor test is “not 

mechanical,” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2007), and the court “need not make explicit findings regarding each of these factors,” Leon v. IDX Sys. 

Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006). Rather, the test “provides the district court with a way to think 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 9 of 13
10

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

30

about what to do, not a set of conditions precedent for sanctions or a script that the district court must 

follow.” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 482 F.3d at 1096. “What is most critical for case-dispositive 

sanctions, regarding risk of prejudice and of less drastic sanctions, is whether discovery violations 

threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” Id. at 1097.

Courts may also impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, as part of their inherent 

power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases” or 

based on a failure to comply with court orders. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991); 

Pagtalunan v. Galazza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). In both instances, the Ninth Circuit has held 

that the same five-factor test utilized in the context of Rule 37 sanctions applies. Leon, 464 F.3d at 958 

n. 4; Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642.

Plaintiff failed to respond to any of Defendants’ discovery requests within the required time 

frame and did not comply with the Court’s order to respond to those requests by August 1, 2016. 

Defendants request terminating sanctions based on this noncompliance. As explained above, the Court 

considers five factors in deciding whether to issue terminating sanctions.

The first and second factors (the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the litigation and 

the court’s need to manage its docket) both favor the issuance of dispositive sanctions, while the fourth 

(the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits) disfavors it. Li v. A Perfect Day 

Franchise, 281 F.R.D. 373, 392 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“Where a court order is violated, the first and second 

factors weigh in favor of default, while the fourth weighs against default; the third (risk of prejudice to 

the party seeking sanctions) and fifth factors (availability of less drastic sanctions) are therefore 

decisive”), citing Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987).

The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions, considers whether “the [nonmoving party’s] actions impair the [moving party’s] ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the 

rightful decision of the case.” Id. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery in a timely fashion does 

interfere with Defendants’ ability to go to trial and receive a fair decision in this case. Non-expert 

discovery has now closed and the dispositive motion filing deadline is only weeks away. The matter is 

set for trial only three months from now. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ written discovery 

has damaged their ability to determine whether the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint have any factual 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 10 of 13
11

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

30

basis and to defend themselves against those allegations.

The fifth factor, however, the availability of lesser sanctions, counsels against dismissal at this

point in the case. As Defendants acknowledge, there are other avenues and sanctions available. 

Dismissal of a case as a sanction “is ‘the most severe penalty,’ and is authorized only in ‘extreme 

circumstances.’” Li, 281 F.R.D. at 392, quoting United States ex rel. Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu 

Constr. Co., 857 F.2d 600, 603 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1988). While Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ 

discovery when required, Defendants also delayed in bringing this issue to the Court’s attention and only 

did so three months after the discovery requests had been served and one month after the original nonexpert discovery cutoff. (ECF Nos. 25, 39.) The Court thus declines to issue terminating sanctions in 

this instance. Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff initially failed to respond to Defendants’ 

discovery requests, disobeyed the Court’s instructions to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests, and 

ultimately failed to respond sufficiently to a number of discovery requests, which are detailed, in part, 

above. Thus, at least some variety of sanction is warranted.

B. Monetary Sanctions

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) requires that monetary sanctions be imposed on the 

disobedient party or attorney “unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make 

an award of expenses unjust.” The fact that Plaintiff eventually responded to the discovery requests 

does not preclude imposition of monetary sanctions. N. Am. Watch Corp. v. Princess Ermine Jewels, 

786 F.2d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Belated compliance with discovery orders does not preclude the 

imposition of sanctions.”). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery requirements and the Court’s 

order was not substantially justified. However, Plaintiff is currently proceeding in forma pauperis, 

which makes it unlikely that he would be able pay any monetary sanction or that it would spur 

compliance with the Court’s orders. Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 466 (C.D. Cal. 2014) 

(“because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis due to documented indigency, plaintiff would be 

unable to pay a monetary sanction and the imposition of such a sanction would be futile as a means of 

inducing him to comply with this Court’s discovery orders.”); Jones v. Frazesn, Case No. 2:07-cv-02758 

RCT, 2009 WL 3254905, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2009) (“While Plaintiff’s failure to abide by his 

obligations under this Court’s discovery orders was not substantially justified, the Court finds his in 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 11 of 13
12

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

30

forma pauperis status a circumstance that makes an award of expenses unjust.”). No monetary sanctions 

will be issued in this instance.

C. Evidentiary Sanctions

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) also allows the issuance of evidentiary sanctions “prohibiting the disobedient 

party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated 

matters in evidence.” Under this rule, trial courts are entitled to preclude the introduction of evidence or 

issues following a failure to comply with discovery orders. Von Brimer v. Whirlpool Corp., 536 F.2d 

838, 843 (9th Cir. 1976). 

As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to adequately respond to:

 Requests for Production Nos. 47 and 48, which request documents showing the ability of 

Plaintiff’s business to provide equivalent officiating services as SJVOA and which 

demonstrate the maximum number of games Plaintiff has officiated in any given season;

and,

 Special Interrogatories Nos. 21, 26, 27, and 41, which ask for:

o The name and address of any individual who was denied an appointment to the 

SJVOA Board of Directors because of race;

o A list of all instances of discrimination perpetrated by individual Defendants 

against Plaintiff;

o A description of each act of discriminatory conduct which Defendant SJVOA 

perpetrated against Plaintiff; and,

o Any facts supporting the allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint that he was subjected 

to specific instances of racial discrimination by Defendants.

The Court finds it appropriate, based on these failures, to preclude Plaintiff from introducing 

further facts or evidence in response to these issues, to the extent not specifically disclosed in his 

discovery responses. Discovery is first and foremost a way for one party to determine the evidence 

supporting another party’s allegations, so it can properly investigate that evidence prior to trial. Here, 

Plaintiff has thwarted Defendants’ efforts to understand the basis of Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff did 

not comply with the initial deadlines for discovery as set by the discovery rules, did not comply with the 

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 12 of 13
13

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

30

Court ordered dealine, and when he finally provided resonses, they were insufficient. This may be 

because Plaintiff has failed to put forth the time to set down his evidence to writing, or it may be that 

Plaintiff does not have additional evidence to disclose. In either case, the time for discovery has closed 

and Plaintiff should be held to the evidence and information he disclosed to Defendants in discovery. 

Specifically, the Court orders that Plaintiff cannot offer or introduce into evidence facts, 

documents or other evidence, either during summary judgment or at trial, which were not specifically 

identified and disclosed to Defendants in discovery as of August 26, 2016. For example, Plaintiff may 

not later assert that he knows of an individual who was denied an appointment to the SJVOA Board of 

Directors because of race, nor may he attempt to seek testimony or other evidence from any such 

individual, unless that individual was specifically identified in response Special Interrogatory No. 21. 

Moreover, Plaintiff is prohibited from further attempting to supplement his discovery responses; his case 

must succeed or fail on the information he has disclosed as of August 26, 2016.

Such sanctions are reasonably related to the subject of discovery that was frustrated by Plaintiff’s 

sanctionable conduct. Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., 281 F.R.D. 373, 393-394 (N.D. Cal. 2012) 

(issue sanction justified for failure to produce documents and deponents); Tacori Enters. v. Beverlly 

Jewellery Co. Ltd., 253 F.R.D. 577, 584 (C.D. Cal. 2008), citing Nike, Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide, 

Inc., 43 F.3d 644, 647-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (applying Ninth Circuit law and affirming court order 

precluding plaintiff from presenting evidence regarding one theory of liability when plaintiff did not 

provide discovery on the issue). 

IV. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions 

against Plaintiff James Lanier (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01938-EPG Document 55 Filed 09/12/16 Page 13 of 13