Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01235/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01235-3/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 Manuel A. Blanco is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical 

need against Defendant Dan Ricablanca. 

Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on October 21, 2014, and the discovery and 

scheduling order was issued on October 24, 2014. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) 

Now pending before the Court is Defendant Ricablanca filed a motion to compel, filed May 

29, 2015. Plaintiff did not file an opposition, and the motion is deemed submitted for review. Local 

Rule 230(l). 

///

MANUEL A. BLANCO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DAN RICABLANCA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01235-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE A RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

[ECF No. 24]

Case 1:13-cv-01235-SAB Document 25 Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 5
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

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and at the time the complaint was filed he was a state prisoner 

challenging his conditions of confinement. As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the 

requirements which would otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and 

confer in good faith prior to involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 37, Discovery and 

Scheduling Order, &5. Further, where otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the 

safety and security of the prison or infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the 

Court to balance interests in determining whether disclosure should occur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); 

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21, 104 S.Ct. 2199 (1984) (privacy rights or 

interests implicit in broad purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. 

United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing 

assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a 

constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 

1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting 

inmate=s entitlement to inspect discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which 

mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 

WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents 

containing information which implicated the safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. 

CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for 

protective order and for redaction of information asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of 

inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 

6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in 

camera review or move for a protective order). However, this is a civil action to which the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good 

Case 1:13-cv-01235-SAB Document 25 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 5
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

faith, and callous disregard of discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern 

Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

B. Motion to Compel

1. Response to Defendant’s Discovery Requests

Pursuant to the Court’s discovery and scheduling order, the deadline for completion of all 

discovery, including the filing of all motions to compel discovery, was June 24, 2015. 

On March 17, 2015, defense counsel served Plaintiff with special interrogatories and request 

for production of documents. (ECF No. 24-2, Declaration of Kimberlei D. Evans ¶ 2.) Pursuant to 

this Court’s discovery order, responses to Defendant’s discovery requests were due 45 days from the 

date of service. Defense counsel declares that Plaintiff failed to serve responses to the discovery. (Id.

¶ 5.) In addition, on April 28, 2015, defense counsel served Plaintiff with a notice of deposition. (Id.

¶ 4.) Plaintiff failed to appear at his deposition. (Id.) 

Defense counsel declares that prior to the date of Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff did not 

contact her office via telephone or written correspondence to request the deposition to be rescheduled 

or advise that he would not appear. (Id. ¶ 6.) Counsel was also unable to contact Plaintiff because a 

telephone number was not provided to the Court, and other efforts to obtain a telephone number for 

Plaintiff were not successful. (Id.) On May 7, 2015, defense counsel sent Plaintiff a “meet and 

confer” letter as a good faith attempt to obtain the discovery without court intervention. (Id. ¶ 7.) 

However, Plaintiff did not respond to the letter and to date counsel has received no discovery 

responses. (Id.) 

 The Court has reviewed the special interrogatories and request for production propounded by 

Defendant to Plaintiff. The Court finds the discovery requests are both relevant and appropriate, and 

because Plaintiff has failed to provide any explanation or justification for his failure to respond to this 

requests, Defendant’s motion to compel shall be granted. Plaintiff will be directed to provide 

responses to all of the interrogatories and requests for production within thirty days from the date of 

service of this order. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01235-SAB Document 25 Filed 08/07/15 Page 3 of 5
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. Imposition of Monetary Sanctions

Defendant also seeks the imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,312.50, for 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the discovery rules. Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that the failure to respond to discovery requests and/or attend a noticed deposition may 

subject the litigant to sanctions, including the payment of reasonable expenses in the form of

attorney’s fees, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of 

expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). Defense counsel declares that “[a]s a result of Plaintiff’s 

failure to cooperate in the discovery process, it is anticipated that defendant will incur $2,312.50 in 

costs in having to bring this motion to compel.” (Declaration of Kimberlei D. Evans ¶ 9.) Counsel’s 

billable hourly rate for Defendant is $185.00, and counsel spent 3 hours in preparing the instant 

motion ($555.00); .5 hours (anticipated) for preparation of a reply ($92.50); 8 hours (anticipated) 

roundtrip travel for the hearing on the motion ($1.480.00), and 1 hour (anticipated) for attendance at 

the hearing on the motion ($185.00), totally $2,312.50. (Id. ¶ 9.) 

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, and defense counsel 

did not incur expenses in filing a reply, and traveling and attending a hearing on the instant motion, the 

Court finds an award of monetary sanctions at this time would be unjust. Thus, the Court shall deny 

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. However, the Court reminds Plaintiff that “[p]ro se 

litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff filed the instant action and he is bound by the rules governing 

the prosecution of the case. Therefore, Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to comply with this order 

and respond to the written discovery (and any future failure to attend a noticed deposition) may result 

in monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, and/or dismissal of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 & 37; 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991) (court’s “inherent” power to impose sanctions); 

Local Rule 110. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01235-SAB Document 25 Filed 08/07/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED, and within thirty (30) days from the date 

of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant’s special 

interrogatories and production of documents; 

2. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED, without prejudice; and

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in imposition of monetary 

sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, and/or dismissal of the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:13-cv-01235-SAB Document 25 Filed 08/07/15 Page 5 of 5