Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01884/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01884-16/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Juan Jaimes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. 

Plaintiff filed this action on November 21, 2013. 

On January 29, 2016, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. In said order, the parties 

were ordered, inter alia, to provide initial disclosures no later than March 14, 2016. On April 22, 2016, 

Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide his initial disclosures. Plaintiff did not file an 

opposition. On June 8, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel initial disclosures. Plaintiff 

was directed to provide initial disclosures to Defendants and show cause within fourteen days why 

sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply. Over fourteen days have passed and Plaintiff has 

failed to respond in any manner. 

///

///

JUAN JAIMES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. HERRERA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01884 LJO DLB PC

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Case 1:13-cv-01884-LJO-SAB Document 66 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION

As stated in the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order of January 29, 2016, the parties were 

ordered to provide initial disclosures. As for his part, Plaintiff was ordered to comply as follows:

Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with the name and, if known, the location or other 

identifying information (such as inmate number, job classification or assignment) of each 

individual likely to have information about the events described in his complaint or his 

claims of injury or damage. In addition, Plaintiff shall describe, generally, the information 

each individual so identified is believed to possess.

Plaintiff shall also provide copies of, or a list describing (by category and location), all 

documents or other tangible things in his possession, custody or control which he may use 

to support the allegation(s) in his complaint, or his claims of injury or damage.

(ECF No. 56 at 1-2.)

Plaintiff failed to comply. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(c)(1), a party who 

fails to make initial disclosures “is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a 

motion, at a hearing, or at trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Accordingly, 

in any motion, hearing or trial in this case, Plaintiff will be barred from using any evidence derived from 

any individual likely to have information about the events described in his complaint or his claims of

injury or damage, as well as any evidence in the form of documents or other tangible things in his 

possession, custody or control which could be used to support the allegations in his complaint, or his 

claims of injury or damage.

In addition to this evidence preclusion sanction, the Court may “order payment of the reasonable 

expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure” to provide initial disclosures. Fed.R.Civ.P. 

37(c)(1)(A). Finally, Rule 37(b)(2)(C) provides for sanctions for violation of a Court's discovery order, and 

requires the Court to “order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the 

reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially 

justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” The burden is on Plaintiff to show 

that his failure to provide initial disclosures was substantially justified or harmless to avoid sanctions. See

Yeti By Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, the Court does 

not find an award of monetary sanctions appropriate at this time.

///

Case 1:13-cv-01884-LJO-SAB Document 66 Filed 07/07/16 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is SANCTIONED for failing to provide 

initial disclosures as ordered by the Court. Plaintiff will not be permitted to use any evidence in any 

motion, hearing or trial which should have been provided in his initial disclosures. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01884-LJO-SAB Document 66 Filed 07/07/16 Page 3 of 3