Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00594/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00594-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Injunction

---

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

STEVEN HEMPFLING, d/b/a/ FREE )

ENTERPRISE SOCIETY, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-00594-LJO-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET

OF INTERROGATORIES AND TO FIRST

SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

(DOC. 108)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NO LATER

THAN FEBRUARY 4, 2008

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF’S

COUNSEL TO SUBMIT DECLARATION

REGARDING FEES AND EXPENSES

WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS 

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

I. Background

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to respond to

Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and first set of

requests for production of documents and things, which were

served on October 22, 2007, and which required responses on or

Case 1:05-cv-00594-LJO -SMS Document 115 Filed 01/30/08 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

 Defendant argued in the opposition that an interlocutory appeal deprived this Court of jurisdiction, but the 1

opposition was filed January 22, 2008, a week after January 14, 2008, the day of filing of the the Ninth Circuit’s

order dismissing the appeal and denying an alternate request to proceed in mandamus.

2

before November 25, 2007. Defendant has opposed the motion, and 1

Plaintiff filed a reply. Previously, this Court had ordered

Defendant’s jury demand stricken on July 5, 2007, and Defendant

filed an interlocutory notice of appeal from the order on August

2, 2007. Defendant informed Plaintiff by letter dated November 9,

2007, that it was the position of Defendant and his counsel that

the pendency of the appeal deprived this Court of subject-matter

jurisdiction and further rendered the Plaintiff’s propounding of

discovery improper and relieved Defendant of any obligation to

comply with discovery requests. Defendant has neither

specifically objected nor responded to any of the discovery

requests.

By separate order, the Court has vacated the hearing on the

motion, and the matter has been submitted to the Court for

decision based on the pleading and papers heretofore submitted in

connection with the motion.

II. Compliance with Local Rule 37-251

The Court rejects Defendant’S contention that the motion to

compel should be denied because of the moving Plaintiff’s failure

to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 37-251 that the

parties meet, confer, and prepare a joint statement of discovery

disagreement. 

Here, Defendant completely failed to respond to the

discovery requests; therefore, pursuant to Rule 37-251(d), this

is one of the situations in which no joint statement is required,

Case 1:05-cv-00594-LJO -SMS Document 115 Filed 01/30/08 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

namely, where there has been a complete and total failure of

Defendant to respond to the request.

II. Lack of Jurisdiction

The Court rejects Defendant’s argument that the Court was or

is without jurisdiction over the action. 

As Judge O’Neill decided in the order of January 4, 2008,

extending two deadlines (non-expert discovery extended to

February 4, 2008, and pretrial motion filing deadline extended to

February 14, 2008), the filing of an appeal from an interlocutory

order, as distinct from an appeal from a final order, does not

automatically divest the district court of jurisdiction without a

certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). (Order at p. 4

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), and Chacon v.

Babcock, 640 F.2d 221 (9 Cir. 1981)).) Further, Judge O’Neill th

determined that an order to show cause that had issued from the

Ninth Circuit indicated that the appellate court had not

exercised jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) It appears that this

Court should be bound by Judge O’Neill’s ruling pursuant to the

doctrine of the law of the case. A court abuses its discretion in

applying the law of the case doctrine only if (1) the first

decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an intervening change in the

law occurred; (3) the evidence on remand was substantially

different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; or (5) a

manifest injustice would otherwise result. United States v. Lummi

Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d at 452-53 (citing United States v. Cuddy,

147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998)). Here, there does not appear

to be any basis to do other than follow Judge O’Neill’s order.

Finally, the Court takes judicial notice of an order filed

Case 1:05-cv-00594-LJO -SMS Document 115 Filed 01/30/08 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

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 14, 2008, in

which the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the

interlocutory appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s order. The Court

may take judicial notice of court records. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b);

United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 Cir. 1993); th

Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.

Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9 Cir. 1981). Further, the th

court stated that it denied the alternative prayer for review by

way of mandamus. Thus, it does not appear that there is any

proceeding pending before the Ninth Circuit any longer.

Finally, as noted by Judge O’Neill, even though an

interlocutory appeal might have been pending, it is specifically

provided by statute that an application for an appeal shall not

stay proceedings in the district court unless the district court

or the Court of Appeals shall so order. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Accordingly, the pendency of the appeal from an order

concerning a jury demand did not make the propounding of

discovery improper and did not relieve the Defendant of his

obligation to comply with discovery demands. The Court further

finds that Defendant’s position with respect to the effect of the

appeal on jurisdiction was not substantially justified.

III. Remedy

A. Compelling Discovery Responses 

Plaintiff seeks to have Defendant be ordered to respond to

the interrogatories and request for production and things by

February 4, 2008, the deadline for non-expert discovery recently

set by Judge O’Neill; further, it seeks reimbursement of the

United States for its attorney’s fees and reasonable expenses.

Case 1:05-cv-00594-LJO -SMS Document 115 Filed 01/30/08 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

Defendant has failed to respond to the discovery requests,

has not objected to any of them, and has thus waived any

objections to the discovery requests. A failure to object to

discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver

of any objection. Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants,

959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9 Cir. 1992). th

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion to compel should

be granted. 

In the order of January 4, 2008, Judge O’Neill noted that

the government’s preparation of the case had been hampered by

Defendant, and the Court would not permit Defendant to use the

tactics of raising meritless arguments to avoid cooperating with

discovery requests and to delay this litigation, which is already

two and one-half years old. (Order pp. 5-6.) Thus, the Court

extended the pretrial deadlines; however, the Court noted that

the government had had notice of Defendant’s position on the

outstanding discovery requests, and yet the government had not

brought a timely motion to compel compliance; thus, the Court

declined to move the pretrial conference and trial dates of April

2, 2008, and May 14, 2008, respectively. (Id. p. 5.) 

The Court therefore concludes that the due date for

Defendant’s required compliance with Plaintiff’s discovery

requests will be February 4, 2008, in order to stay within the

dates set by Judge O’Neill and to permit time for motions

thereafter to be filed timely. 

B. Fees and Expenses

Under Rule 37(d), the Court shall require the party failing

to act or the attorney advising that party or both to pay

Case 1:05-cv-00594-LJO -SMS Document 115 Filed 01/30/08 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

the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the

failure unless the Court finds that the failure was substantially

justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses

unjust.

The filing of a notice of appeal without seeking

interlocutory certification in the instant action did not justify

Defendant’s noncompliance with his discovery obligations; no

other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Therefore, the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s

fees, caused by Defendant’s failure to comply with discovery,

will be ordered to be paid after the Plaintiff submits a

declaration detailing those expenses.

IV. Disposition

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that

1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to respond to

Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and first set of

requests for production of documents and things IS GRANTED; and

2) Defendant IS ORDERED to serve responses to Plaintiff’s

first set of interrogatories and first set of requests for

production of documents and things no later than February 4,

2008; and

3) Fees and costs SHALL BE AWARDED; Defendant WILL BE

ORDERED to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's

fees, of Plaintiff that were caused by the Defendant’s failure to

respond to the discovery after the Court receives input from

Plaintiff regarding the amount of those fees and expenses; and

4) Plaintiff’s counsel IS DIRECTED to serve and file in this

Court no later than fifteen days after the date of service of

Case 1:05-cv-00594-LJO -SMS Document 115 Filed 01/30/08 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

7

this order a declaration or declarations in support of claimed

fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00594-LJO -SMS Document 115 Filed 01/30/08 Page 7 of 7