Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606-16/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

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

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 

PRODUCTION OF VIDEOTAPES AND 

PROVIDING PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS 

WITHIN WHICH TO RESPOND TO 

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR 

REASONABLE EXPENSES

(Doc. 62)

Plaintiff Akheem Williams (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This 

action is proceeding against Defendants Garcia, Valdez, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stepp, Collier, 

Torres, Delia, Jr., and Tordsen (“Defendants”) for use of excessive physical force, in violation of 

the United States Constitution. 

On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a timely motion to compel production of videotapes. 

Defendants filed an opposition on October 30, 2013, and the motion has been submitted upon the 

record. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the production of videotapes from events on November 

4, 2010, March 1, 2011, and July 29, 2011. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Defendants oppose the motion 

on the ground that no videotapes exist, and they seek the assessment of reasonable expenses on the 

basis that Plaintiff’s motion is frivolous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 79 Filed 12/04/13 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Despite Plaintiff’s contention that he received no 

responses to his requests for discovery, Defendants have provided evidence that Plaintiff was 

informed via discovery responses that no videotapes were located. Plaintiff’s motion is not 

accompanied by any argument or evidence which would support a finding that Defendants’ 

discovery responses were evasive or untruthful, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he 

is required to accept Defendants’ responses that no tapes were located. 

If a motion to compel is denied, the Court shall require the movant to pay the party who 

opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney’s 

fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B) (quotation marks omitted). Before doing so, the Court must 

provide an opportunity to be heard and the Court shall not order payment if circumstances make 

an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B) (quotation marks omitted). In this case, 

Defendants seek attorney’s fees in the amount of $360.00, incurred in opposing Plaintiff’s motion 

to compel. Plaintiff shall have thirty days within which to respond.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that (1) Plaintiff’s motion 

to compel production of videotapes is DENIED, and (2) Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the 

date of service of this order within which to file a response to Defendants’ request for reasonable 

expenses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 79 Filed 12/04/13 Page 2 of 2