Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00386-12/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESE L. LESHER,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CITY OF ANDERSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-CV-0386-WBS-DMC

ORDER

 Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action. 

Pending before the Court is a request for reasonable expenses for costs associated with a motion 

to compel, brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). 

I. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further discovery responses from Defendants. 

ECF No. 44. At issue was the following: 

 City of Anderson (City)

 Request for Production Nos. 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25. 

 Request for Admissions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 

 Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 

 Miller 

 Requests for Admissions Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 34, 35. 

 Interrogatory No. 12. 

Case 2:21-cv-00386-WBS-DMC Document 68 Filed 01/10/24 Page 1 of 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 

2

 Miley 

 Request for Admissions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 34, 35. 

 Interrogatory No. 12. 

 Lee 

 Request for Admissions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 34, 35. 

 Interrogatory No. 12. 

 Following a hearing, the Court granted the motion to compel in part and denied the 

motion in part. See ECF No. 56. Specifically, the Court directed Defendants to serve 

supplemental responses and produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production 

of documents nos. 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 25 propounded to the City, serve supplemental 

responses to Plaintiff’s request for admission nos. 19, 29, 34, and 35 propounded to Miller, 

Miley, and Lee, and respond to interrogatory no. 12 propounded to Miller, Miley, and Lee; the 

Court otherwise denied the requests. See id. at 14-15. The Court also directed the parties to file 

briefs regarding reasonable expenses. See id. The parties did so. See ECF Nos. 54, 55, 57, and 

58. 

II. DISCUSSION

 Plaintiff seeks an award of expenses associated with the entire motion to compel. 

According to Plaintiff’s counsel, attorney Sanjay Schmidt spent 12.7 hours and attorney Panos 

Lagos spent 44.65 hours associated with the motion. See ECF Nos. 54-1 (Lagos declaration) and 

54-2 (Schmidt declaration). Attorney Lagos states that his in-forum reasonable rate is $400.00 

per hour. See ECF Nos. 58-2 (supplemental Lagos declaration). Attorney Schmidt stated that his 

in-forum reasonable rate is $300.00 per hour. See ECF No. 58-3 (supplemental Schmidt 

declaration). 

 In opposition to Plaintiff’s request for reasonable expenses, Defendants argue: 

(1) an award of expenses is not warranted because Defendants’ position was substantially 

justified; (2) Defendants are entitled to an award of reasonable expenses under the apportionment 

provision of Rule 37(a)(5)(C) because Defendants partially prevailed; and (3) if the Court is 

inclined to award reasonable expenses to Plaintiff, such an award should be reduced because 

some of the fees claimed by Plaintiff’s counsel are unsupported. See ECF No. 57. Defendants’ 

Case 2:21-cv-00386-WBS-DMC Document 68 Filed 01/10/24 Page 2 of 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 

3

counsel did not submit timesheets or hourly rate information in support of their request for 

apportioned expenses.1 

 The prevailing party in a motion to compel may seek reasonable expenses incurred 

in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). A party may 

recover part of its reasonable expenses if only part of its motion is granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(5)(C). The prevailing party is entitled to expenses unless the non-prevailing party’s 

contention was substantially justified or if other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). A contention is substantially justified if there is a “genuine dispute” or if 

reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action. Pierce v. 

Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). 

 Most of the discovery dispute hinged on the impact of the District Judge’s 

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Monell claims against the City. See id. at 6. Plaintiff asserted that even 

though its Monell claims had been dismissed, it was still entitled to all the discovery sought prior 

to the dismissal of the claims. See ECF No. 45 at 13. According to Plaintiff, the information was 

still relevant to punitive damages and its state law claims against the City for its failure to 

adequately train or supervise. Id. Defendants disagreed and argued that the dismissal of the 

Monell claims should narrow the scope of discovery. 

 The Court ultimately agreed with Plaintiff that dismissal of the Monell claims did 

not narrow the scope of discovery. Id. at 7. Although information such as prior acts of 

misconduct would no longer be relevant to a Monell claim, the information was still relevant to 

prove intent and so was relevant to Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Id. at 6. 

/ / /

/ / /

1 Defense counsel merely states: “If the Court is inclined to award attorney fees to 

the parties’ counsel for the split decision, Defendants’ counsel also asks for the ability to submit 

their billing time sheets along with evidence of their hour rate to obtain reimbursement of their 

attorney fees for the parts of the motion where they were successful.” ECF No. 47, pg. 14. The 

Court denies this request. In the order addressing Plaintiff’s discovery motion, the Court 

provided the parties an opportunity to brief the issue of reasonable expenses. This would have 

included Defendants’ current argument for apportionment. Defendants have thus had an 

opportunity to brief the issue. 

Case 2:21-cv-00386-WBS-DMC Document 68 Filed 01/10/24 Page 3 of 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 

4

 Although the Court ruled in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiff can only recover if 

Defendants’ objection was not substantially justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii). 

The Court finds there was a genuine dispute as to whether dismissal of the Monell claims limited 

the scope of discovery, and Defendant’s objection was substantially justified. See Pierce v. 

Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). The District Judge dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s 

Monell claims involving the City having unconstitutional customs or policies, ratifying 

constitutional violations, and failing to train. ECF No. 19. It is reasonable to argue that the 

dismissal of the claims impacted the need for the discovery directly relevant to those claims. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (“Parties may obtain discovery . . . relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case. . . .”). Although Plaintiff successfully argued that the 

information sought was still tangentially relevant to its remaining claims, the shifting needs of the 

case and relevance of the information created a genuine dispute. 

 The Court considers below in detail whether each of Plaintiff’s reasonable 

expenses should be recovered on each part of the motion to compel. The Court also considered 

the issue of apportionment. 

A. Entitlement to Award

1. Requests for Production from the City 

 The parties disputed whether requests for production of documents nos. 12, 14, 15, 

17, 19, 20, 21, and 25 from the City were appropriate. ECF No. 56. at 5. 

 For the requests, the disputes were largely the same. Id. Plaintiff contended that 

evidence of prior acts of similar misconduct were relevant to prove intent, which was relevant the 

punitive damages claim. Id. Defendants argued that the evidence amounted to improper 

character evidence, the dismissal of the Monell claims had narrowed the scope of discovery, and 

the requests overbroad in time and scope. Id.

 The Court ordered that requests nos. 12 and 17 be compelled but placed limitations 

on the requests. Id. at 7-8. Each request was narrowed, as otherwise they were overbroad. Id. 

Although the requests were granted, Defendant successfully objected that the requests were 

overbroad, and so costs cannot be recovered for the requests. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 

Case 2:21-cv-00386-WBS-DMC Document 68 Filed 01/10/24 Page 4 of 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 

5

37(a)(5)(ii). 

 The Court ordered request no. 14 and 15 be compelled without placing any further 

limitations. ECF No. 56 at 8. The requests were for hiring documents and for materials related 

to the defendants’ training. Id. As discussed above, Defendants were reasonable in objecting that 

the documents were no longer relevant in light of the dismissal of the Monell claims. Id. 

Because Defendants brought substantially justified objections, costs cannot be recovered for the 

requests. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5)(ii). 

 At the hearing, Defendants agreed to produce responsive documents to requests 

nos. 19, 20, 21, and 25. Id. at 8. The Court ordered Defendants to do so. Id. 

 On this record, the Court finds that Plaintiff qualifies to recover for this part of the 

motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5)(A). 

 2. Requests for Admissions from the City

 Plaintiff sought admissions from the City. ECF No. 56 at 8. The parties disputed 

whether admissions nos. 3-12 were appropriate. See id. at 8. 

 For nos. 3-11, the Court ruled that the requests for admissions were vague and 

overbroad. Id. The requests were denied without prejudice to more tailored requests. Id. at 10. 

Because the requests were denied, Plaintiff cannot recover costs for those requests. See Fed. R. 

Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5). 

 For no. 12, Plaintiff sought to have the City authenticate a document. See id. The 

City properly objected that it had no obligation to interview an independent agency to 

authenticate the document. See id. The Court denied the motion to compel no. 12. Id. 

 Because the request was denied, Plaintiff cannot recover costs for the request. See

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5). There was no substantial justification for the request, as an 

authenticated version of the document could have been obtained by Plaintiff. See ECF no. 56 at 

10. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:21-cv-00386-WBS-DMC Document 68 Filed 01/10/24 Page 5 of 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 

6

3. Requests for Admissions by Defendants Miller and Lee

 Plaintiff argued that Defendants Miller and Lee did not properly respond to request 

for admission no. 11. Id. Defendants attempted to explain their answer rather than admitting or 

denying the matter, which Plaintiffs claimed violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Id. The 

Court found otherwise, as Rule 36(a)(4) requires a responding party to qualify its answer when it 

cannot admit or deny in whole. Id. 

 Because the request was denied, Plaintiff cannot recover costs for the request. See

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5). There was no substantial justification for the request, as Rule 

36(a)(4) is clear that a party may explain an answer if it cannot truthfully admit or deny it. 

4. Requests for Admissions by Defendants Miller, Miley, and Lee 

 Defense disputed admissions nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 34, and 35. 

ECF no. 56 at 11. 

 The Court agreed with Defendant that the requests nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 

21 did not ask about the facts of the case or about the application of the facts of the case to the 

law. Id. at 11. The requests were in violation of Rule 36(a)(1), and so were denied. Id. Because 

the requests were denied, Plaintiff cannot recover costs for those requests. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

R. 37(a)(5). Because the requests were outside the scope of Rule 36(a)(1), Plaintiffs were not 

substantially justified in their requests. 

 The Court agreed with Plaintiff that request no. 19 was not adequately responded 

to by Defendants. Id. at 12. The Defendants responded with the word “unlawful” where the 

request uses the word “crime.” Id. The Court agreed with Plaintiff that there is a meaningful 

distinction between the two words and compelled Defendants to respond appropriately. Id. 

The Court finds that falsely equivocating “unlawful” and “crime” was not substantially justified, 

as there is an obvious and clear distinction between the two words, and so Plaintiff qualifies to

recover for this part of the motion to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5)(A).

 At the hearing, Plaintiff clarified a date for request no. 29. Id. Defendant did not 

dispute the date, so the Court compelled the request. Id.

/ / /

Case 2:21-cv-00386-WBS-DMC Document 68 Filed 01/10/24 Page 6 of 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 

7

 Requests nos. 34 and 35 sought to have the Defendants respond to whether they 

were named in other lawsuits in their capacities as law enforcement officers. Id. Defendants 

objected because of the District Judge’s Monell ruling. Id. The Court agreed with Plaintiff that 

the requests were still appropriate because the requests were proportionate to the needs of the 

case. See id. The Court granted the motion to compel for requests nos. 34 and 35. 

 As previously discussed, Defendants were substantially justified in objecting based 

on the dismissal of the Monell claims. Because there was substantial justification for objecting, 

Plaintiff cannot recover costs for the request. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5)(ii). 

 5. Requests for Interrogatories from the City 

 The parties disputed responses to interrogatories nos. 4-13. Id. at 13. 

 The Court found in favor of Defendants for nos. 4-12, holding that the requests 

were overbroad. Id. Defendants did not deny a request for admission for no. 13, but further 

responses were not warranted. Id. 

 Because the requests were denied, Plaintiff cannot recover costs for those requests. 

See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5). 

6. Requests for Interrogatories from Miller, Miley, and Lee 

 Defendants argued that interrogatory no. 12 was irrelevant based on dismissal of 

the Monell claims. Id. The Court found in favor of Plaintiff, as the interrogatory sought 

information that may still be relevant to the remaining state law claims. Id. Because there was 

substantial justification for objecting, Plaintiff cannot recover costs for the request. See Fed. R. 

Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5)(ii). 

B. Apportionment

 When a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, the court may 

apportion reasonable expenses for the motion. Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5)(C). 

 Plaintiff’s requests that were granted that were not opposed with substantial 

justification were requests for production from the City nos. 19, 20, 21, and 25 and requests for 

Admissions by Defendants Miller, Miley, and Lee nos. 19 and 29. See ECF No. 56 at 8, 12. 

Except for request no. 29, Defendants did not oppose responding to the requests at the hearing. 

Case 2:21-cv-00386-WBS-DMC Document 68 Filed 01/10/24 Page 7 of 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 

8

See id. 

 Defense successfully argued against Plaintiff’s: (1) requests for admissions from 

the City nos. 3-12; (2) requests for admission by Defendants Miller and Lee no. 11; (3) requests 

for admissions by Defendants Miller, Miley, and Lee nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 34, and 35; 

and (4) requests for interrogatories from the City nos. 4-12. Id. at 8, 10, 11, 13. Many of 

Plaintiff’s requests were not substantially justified. 

 On balance, Defendants prevailed on the majority of the discovery dispute. 

However, when given the opportunity they declined to provide a billing time sheet. Without 

Defenses’ true costs, the Court cannot grant Defense any costs associated with the motion to 

compel. However, it would be unjust to grant Plaintiff costs because Defense prevailed on the 

majority of matters where argument was not substantially justified. The Court will deny granting 

costs to either party. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 37(a)(5)(iii). 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that neither party is awarded costs under 

Federal Rule of 37 with respect to the motion to compel at ECF No. 44. 

Dated: January 9, 2024 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00386-WBS-DMC Document 68 Filed 01/10/24 Page 8 of 8