Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00436-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE BRIDGETTE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0436 DFL PAN P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion styled “Motion to Impose Discovery Sanctions on

Defendants and Award Plaintiff Monetary Awards.” In the motion, plaintiff contends that on

June 12, 2005 and August 28, 2005, he served a request for production of documents and a set of

interrogatories on defendants and that defendants have “refused to cooperate with the discovery

process” and have exceeded the forty-five day deadline for responding to discovery requests

propounded in this action. See Order Governing Discovery, filed April 12, 2005. Appended to

plaintiff’s motion is a document styled “Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of

Documents” served on June 12, 2005. (Ex. A to Motion filed October 27, 2005.) 

On November 15, 2005, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. In

the opposition, defendants assert that they have complied with plaintiff’s discovery request. 

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 64 Filed 05/31/06 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

2

Specifically, defendants represent that on November 11, 2005, they sent plaintiff “a letter

containing most of the information which the Plaintiff requested” and that the remainder of the

discovery request “has now been answered.” (Objections by Defendants Felker and Sandham to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Impose Discovery Sanctions on Defendants, filed November 15, 2005, at 1.) 

Defendants have included with their opposition evidence to support these assertions. (See

Declaration of Jordan Stanzler in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions and Exhibits thereto, filed

November 15, 2005.) 

After review of the record herein, the court finds that the discovery at issue has

been provided to plaintiff and that sanctions are not appropriate under the circumstances at bar. 

Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (discovery sanctions available to remedy failure to comply with court

order to provide discovery). Moreover, an award of expenses is not justified on the record before

this court. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October

27, 2005 motion is denied.

DATED: May 30, 2006.

12

brid0436.disc

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 64 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2