Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02978/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02978-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BROOKS BRIDGES and ANITA 

STENGEL, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, DAWN 

WALKER, JENNIFER LAMB, 

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT OFFICER MA, and 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2978-MCE-EFB 

ORDER 

 Defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiffs to provide responses to interrogatories and 

requests for production of documents, which they noticed for hearing on February 5, 2020. ECF 

No. 10. Plaintiffs have filed nothing in response to the motion. For the reasons explained below, 

the February 5 hearing is vacated and defendants’ motion to compel is granted. 

 On October 11, 2019, defendants served plaintiffs by mail with interrogatories and 

requests for production of documents. Decl. of Nicholas McCinney ISO Mot. to Compel 

(“McCinney Decl.”), Exs. A-D. According to that declaration, plaintiffs’ responses to the 

requests were due by November 15, 2019. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2), 6(d). Plaintiffs, 

however, failed to serve responses to defendants’ discovery requests. Defendants’ counsel 

Case 2:18-cv-02978-MCE-JDP Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

subsequently reached out to plaintiffs’ counsel on multiple occasions to request responses to the 

outstanding discovery requests, but his efforts proved unsuccessful. McCinney Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, Ex. 

E. 

 Accordingly, defendants now move to compel plaintiffs to provide responses. In violation 

of the court’s local rules, plaintiffs failed to timely file an opposition to the motion. E.D. Cal. 

L.R. 251(e) (excusing the requirement for filing a joint statement when there has been a complete 

failure to respond to a discovery request, and requiring the responding party to file an opposition 

not later than seven days before the hearing date). Since plaintiffs have failed to provide any 

basis for their failure to provide responses, defendants’ motion to compel is granted and plaintiffs 

are ordered to provide responses without objection. See Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 

418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975) (the party resisting discovery has the “heavy burden of showing why 

discovery was denied.”); Hansford v. Solano Cnty. Dept. Health and Human Services, 2011 WL 

3208151, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2011) (“[I]t is well-settled that a failure to respond to 

discovery requests waives objections, including those based on privilege.”) (citing Davis v. 

Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

Defendants also request plaintiffs be ordered to pay them $800 for the reasonable 

expenses they incurred in bringing their motion to compel. ECF No. 10-1 at 4; see Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(a)(5) (courts must “require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the [discovery] motion 

. . . to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s 

fees.”). The court finds that the four hours counsel spent drafting the motion and his hourly rate 

of $200 are reasonable. Accordingly, plaintiffs are also ordered to pay defendants $800. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The February 5, 2020 hearing is vacated; 

 2. Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to provide responses to interrogatories and 

request for production of documents (ECF No. 10) is granted; 

 3. Within 10 days from the date of service of this order, plaintiffs shall serve their 

responses to defendants’ Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set 

One; and 

Case 2:18-cv-02978-MCE-JDP Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

 4. Within 10 days of this order, plaintiffs shall reimburse defendants for the reasonable 

expenses they incurred in the amount of $800. 

DATED: February 4, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-02978-MCE-JDP Document 13 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 3