Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02191/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02191-2/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

06cv2191-JM (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAHMOUD ABDEL KHALEK,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO TROLLEY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06cv2191-JM (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

[Docs. No. 42 & 43-3]

On September 19, 2007, Defendants in the above-entitled action

filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. Doc. No. 42. This motion requests

that the Court compel Plaintiff’s response to outstanding discovery

requests and, in the alternative, issue terminating sanctions, thereby

dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. Id. In support of

both requests, Defendants cite Plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply

with both court orders and the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly

regarding discovery obligations. Docs. No. 42 & 43-3. Plaintiff does

not oppose either aspect of Defendants’ motion.

Plaintiff has indeed totally forsaken his role as a litigant. He

has yet to respond to a single discovery request or obey a single order

to appear. On July 16, 2007, Defendants served Plaintiff’s counsel with

a set of twenty-five special interrogatories concerning Plaintiff, the

Case 3:06-cv-02191-JM-BLM Document 45 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 4
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 06cv2191-JM (BLM)

incident upon which Plaintiff bases his claims, and his alleged

injuries. Doc. No. 43-3, Exhibit A. This was not answered. On the

same day, Plaintiff’s counsel was served with a Request for Production

of Documents, including medical records, which is also outstanding.

Doc. No. 43-2, Exhibit B. This request was preceded by a June 18, 2007

Rule 34 Request for Production of Documents, which also remains

unanswered. Doc. No. 42, p. 3. 

On August 27, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel advised Defendants’ counsel

that he had been unable to respond to the discovery requests because his

client is homeless, and had been out of contact since June 2007. Doc.

No. 43-3, p.2. Plaintiff’s counsel also informed the Court that

Plaintiff does not have a telephone, and that counsel must therefore

wait for his client to contact him.

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to

“obtain discovery regarding any matter ... that is relevant to the claim

or defense of any party ...” Here, Defendants’ discovery requests

concern Plaintiff and the circumstances and aftermath of the incident

upon which Plaintiff bases his claims. Defendant submitted

interrogatories regarding, among other things, Plaintiff’s alleged

injuries and insurance coverage, as well as requested production of

medical bills and documents relating to communications between Plaintiff

and Defendants. Doc. No. 43-3, pp. 2-9, 4-5. 

Under Rule 26, these requests are clearly “relevant” to Defendant’s

defense, and Plaintiff’s failure to respond substantially impairs

Defendants’ ability to prepare for trial. Without the benefit of the

requested interrogatories or documents, Defendants are unable to build

their case and rebut Plaintiff’s claims, despite diligent efforts to do

so. 

Case 3:06-cv-02191-JM-BLM Document 45 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 4
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 06cv2191-JM (BLM)

In light of the above facts, Defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED

in part and the Court issues the following orders.

1. Plaintiff must answer Defendants’ June 18, 2007 Request for

Production of Documents, as well as the July 18, 2007 Special

Interrogatories to Plaintiff (set no. one) and Request for Production of

Documents to Plaintiff (set. no. one). Plaintiff shall respond to these

requests on or before October 30, 2007. Defendants shall file a

declaration on or before November 1, 2007 indicating whether or not

Plaintiff responded. 

2. Defendants’ request for terminating sanctions remains under

submission. However, when a party is ordered to produce discovery

pursuant to a motion to compel, and that party fails to provide the

required discovery, the court may impose sanctions, including

“dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering

a judgment by default against the disobedient party.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff is therefore warned that if he fails to answer

Defendants’ discovery requests as required by this Order, the Court

likely will recommend that the case be terminated for failure to comply

with discovery obligations and court orders. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-02191-JM-BLM Document 45 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 4
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 06cv2191-JM (BLM)

3. As Plaintiff’s inaction renders further proceedings futile, all

pending dates not established by this Order, including those set by the

Case Management Conference Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial

Proceedings, Doc. No. 33, are hereby VACATED. If Plaintiff complies

with his discovery obligations, these dates may be reinstated as

necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: October 18, 2007

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE JEFFREY T. MILLER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-02191-JM-BLM Document 45 Filed 10/18/07 Page 4 of 4