Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00088-21/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE BLAINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARRELL ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00088-LJO-SMS PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION OR

PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE AS A

DISCOVERY SANCTION BE DENIED, BUT

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF BE

REQUIRED TO SERVE A PROPER

DISCOVERY RESPONSE AND WARNED

THAT IF HE DOES NOT, THIS ACTION MAY

BE DISMISSED AS A SANCTION

(Doc. 65)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

I. Defendants’ Motion to Compel

A. Relevant Procedural History

Plaintiff Vance Blaine (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s

amended complaint, filed September 9, 2005, against defendants Wu, Han, Gonzales, Bhatt,

Dwivedi, Wright, Jeffries, and Sweeney for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious

medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pursuant to the court’s order of October 27,

2006, the discovery phase of this litigation opened between plaintiff and defendants Wu, Bhatt,

Wright, Jeffries, and Sweeney. (Doc. 38.) After waiving service and making an appearance in this

action, discovery was opened between plaintiff and defendant Dwivedi on February 7, 2007. (Doc.

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 92 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 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

2

53.) Finally, on March 9, 2007, application of the February 7, 2007, discovery and scheduling order

was extended to defendant Gonzales, following his waiver of service and an appearance in this

action.

On December 18, 2006, defendants Wu, Bhatt, Wright, Jeffries, and Sweeney filed a motion

for an order compelling plaintiff to respond to their interrogatories and request for the production

of documents, served on October 3, 2006. Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion, and on

January 26, 2007, the court issued an order granting defendants’ motion and requiring plaintiff to

serve defendants’ counsel with responses to defendants’ interrogatories and request for the

production of documents within thirty days. On February 6, 2007, plaintiff filed an objection to

defendants’ motion to compel and contended that he served a response on January 10, 2007. On

February 9, 2007, the court issued an order addressing plaintiff’s objection, informing plaintiff that

he did not file a timely objection to defendants’ motion to compel and the motion had already been

granted, and informing plaintiff that if he had responded to defendants’ discovery requests on

January 10, 2007, he thereby satisfied the court’s order. 

On March 9, 2007, defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of this action or for other

sanctions based on plaintiff’s failure to serve them with discovery responses in compliance with the

court’s order of January 26, 2007. Plaintiff did not file a response, and on May 9, 2007, the court

ordered plaintiff to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff filed an opposition

on June 11, 2007.

B. Motion Seeking the Imposition of Sanctions

Defendants Wu, Bhatt, Wright, Jeffries, and Sweeney served interrogatories and a request

for the production of documents on plaintiff on October 3, 2006. On January 26, 2007, plaintiff was

ordered by the court to serve a response within thirty days. Defendants contend that plaintiff did not

comply with the court’s order because plaintiff did not serve them with a proper response to their

discovery requests. Defendants contend that although plaintiff served a purported response on

January 10, 2007, the document is not responsive to their interrogatories or request for the

production of documents. As sanctions for failing to obey the court’s order granting their motion

///

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 92 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 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

3

to compel, defendants seek either the dismissal of this action or an order precluding plaintiff from

introducing any evidence concerning his contentions in this matter

In his opposition, plaintiff stands by his position that his response on January 10, 2007,

satisfied the court’s order.

Plaintiff is required to “furnish such information as is available” to him in responding to

defendants’ interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Plaintiff must either answer or object to each

interrogatory separately, under oath. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1). If plaintiff objectsto an interrogatory,

he must give the reasons for his objection. Id. Plaintiff is also required to produce documents which

are in his “possession, custody or control” in responding to defendants’ request for the production

of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Plaintiff must respond to each request separately and either

produce the document or object to the production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).

A party who fails to obey a court order to provide discovery may be sanctioned through the

preclusion of evidence or the dismissal of the action, one or the other of which is sought by

defendants in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). “Where the drastic sanctions of dismissal or

default are imposed . . . the losing party’s non-compliance must be due to willfulness, fault or bad

faith.” Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 1993); Fjelstad v. American Honda

Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1985). “[D]isobedient conduct not shown to be outside

the control of the litigant is all that is required to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, orfault.” Henry,

983 F.2d at 948 (quoting Fjelstad, 762 F.2d at 1341.) To determine whether to impose a severe

sanction of dismissal or default, a court considers:

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 party seeking sanctions;

4. The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

5. The availability of less drastic sanctions.

Valley Engineers, Inc. v. Electric Engineering Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998); In re Exxon

Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 433 (9th Cir. 1996); Henry, 983 F.2d at 948; United States v. Kahaluu Constr.

Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir. 1988); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles,

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 92 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 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

4

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829, 107 S.Ct. 112 (1986). “What is most

critical for case-dispositive sanctions, regarding risk of prejudice and of less drastic sanctions, is

whether the discovery violations ‘threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.’” Valley

Engineers, 158 F.3d at 1057 (quoting Adriana International Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412

(9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S.Ct. 1019 (1991)).

For each defendant, defendants served eight interrogatories seeking (1) all facts supporting

plaintiff’s contention that the defendant violated his civil or constitutional rights, (2) identification

of the civil or constitutional right violated by the defendant, (3) a description of the incident

involving the defendant which plaintiff contends constituted a violation of his rights, (4) all facts

supporting plaintiff’s contention that he sustained injury or damage as a result of the defendant’s acts

or omissions, (5) identification of all documents supporting plaintiff’s contention that the defendant

violated his rights, (6) identification of all documents supporting plaintiff’s contention that plaintiff

suffered injury or harm as a result of the acts or omissions, (7) identification of all witnesses plaintiff

intends to call at trial to support his contention that the defendant violated his rights, and (8)

identification of all witnesses plaintiff intends to call at trial to support his contention that he suffered

injury or damage as a result of the defendant’s acts or omissions violated his rights. (Doc. 47-4.

MTC, ROGs.) 

For each defendant, defendants sought (1) all documents supporting plaintiff’s contention

that he exhausted all administrative remedies, (2) all documents supporting plaintiff’s contention that

the defendant violated his civil or constitutional rights, (3) all documents supporting plaintiff’s

contention that he suffered injury or harm as a result of the defendant’s purported acts or omissions,

and (4) all medical records relating to the care and treatment plaintiff received for the injuries alleged

in the complaint. (Doc. 47-5. MTC, PODs.) 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s response served January 10, 2007, and it does not comply

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 83,Exhibits.) Plaintiff’s objection that the requests

are unreasonably duplicative is without merit. (Id., pg. 1.) Defendants’ discovery requests are

proper and plaintiff is required to clearly answer or object to each interrogatory and document

production request separately. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b). Although plaintiff addresses each defendant

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 92 Filed 09/13/07 Page 4 of 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

5

separately, his response is best described as vague narrative and is not responsive to the individual

questions asked by defendants. In addition, plaintiff provided a witness list. (Id., pgs. 2-13.) 

As for the document requests, it appears that plaintiff’s position is that he does not have

access to his documents because his excess legal material, including documentation of inmate

appeals and documents relating to his hearing aid batteries, were packed and either disposed of or

mailed out by Correctional Officer Flippen on August 8, 2005. (Id., pgs. 17-18.) Although plaintiff

is not required to produce documents not in his possession, custody or control, plaintiff must respond

to each document request and either produce it or object and explain why he cannot produce it so

that defendant’s counsel can ascertain which documents plaintiff does and does not have access to.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). 

Defendant’s counsel sent two letters to plaintiff in an attempt to resolve this dispute and

explain to plaintiff why his January 10 response was not adequate. (Doc. 65, Exhibits A, B.)

Counsel’s letters were clear as to the deficiencies in plaintiff’s answer, and the court is having

difficulty ascertaining why plaintiff is maintaining his position that he responded properly.

Plaintiff’s position that defendants are abusing discovery and seeking information outside the scope

of discovery is completely devoid of merit. (Doc. 82.) To the extent plaintiff is taking the position

that the court issued an order leading him to believe his response was sufficient, plaintiff is incorrect.

The court merely stated in its order of February 9, 2007, that if plaintiff served a response to

defendants’ discovery requests, plaintiff had satisfied the court’s order. (Doc. 61 .) The statement

was based on plaintiff’s assertion that he had served a response, which the court presumed to be a

proper response absent notification to the contrary by defendants. The court took no position on

whether the response purportedly served by plaintiff was in fact adequate to discharge his duty to

respond to defendants’ discovery requests. As the court notified plaintiff in a subsequent order filed

on February 22, 2007, if defendants were dissatisfied with plaintiff’s response, they were acting

properly by attempting to resolve it with him prior to seeking further court intervention. (Doc. 64.)

In this instance, there is no basis for imposing the drastic sanction of dismissal on plaintiff,

at this juncture. Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and plaintiff did serve a response to 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 92 Filed 09/13/07 Page 5 of 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

6

defendants’ discovery, albeit a deficient one. Thus, this is not a situation where plaintiff blatantly

disregarded defendants’ discovery requests entirely.

Precluding plaintiff from introducing any of the evidence at issue in defendants’ discovery

requests, which would effectively preclude plaintiff from introducing any evidence in support of his

claims, is also too harsh in light of the circumstances set forth above. However, the court will not

allow plaintiff to evade providing defendants with the discovery they seek while continuing to

prosecute this case and seek discovery from defendants. The record reveals that plaintiff is capable

of drafting and serving comprehensive discovery requests on defendants, and the court is not

persuaded that plaintiff is unable to provide an adequate response to defendants’ discovery requests.

Indeed, while responding may take some time, defendants’ requests are drafted in clear,

uncomplicated language and seek basic information concerning plaintiff’s claims and injuries, all

of which are clearly within the scope of discovery. 

Plaintiff is required to serve a proper response to defendants’ interrogatories and request for

the productions of documents, as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Findings

and Recommendations. If plaintiff needs additional time to respond to the four sets of

interrogatories and the request for the production of documents, he may seek an extension of time.

 However, plaintiff may not fail to serve a proper response, which requires responding to each

question or request individually. In recommending that defendants’ motion for dismissal or

preclusion of evidence be denied as too harsh of a sanction, the court recommends that plaintiff be

warned that if he fails to serve a response that complies with the court’s order, the court will consider

dismissing this action as a sanction. Defendants are entitled to the discovery they seek from plaintiff,

and plaintiff should not be permitted to avoid responding to discovery while continuing to proceed

with the action he filed against them. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants Wu, Bhatt, Wright, Jeffries, and Sweeney’s motion seeking dismissal

of this action or preclusion of evidence based on plaintiff’s failure to serve them with

discovery responses in compliance with the court’s order of January 26, 2007, filed

March 9, 2007, be DENIED; and

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 92 Filed 09/13/07 Page 6 of 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

 Plaintiff is placed on notice that the requirement that plaintiff serve a response within thirty days does not 1

become an operative order the objection period expires and the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill issues an order

adopting this Findings and Recommendations in full, should he choose to do so.

7

2. Plaintiff be required to serve a proper response to defendants’ discovery requests, as

detailed in this Findings and Recommendations, within thirty days, and warned that

if he fails to do so, this action may be dismissed as a sanction against him.1

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00088-DGC Document 92 Filed 09/13/07 Page 7 of 7