Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00267/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00267-0/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

1 05-CV-267 J (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD DWAYNE ASHFORD, Civil

No.

05-CV-267 J (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT’S

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER

COMPELLING DISCOVERY [doc. # 61];

AND

(2) REQUIRING OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

[Doc. # 70]

v.

GLOBAL EXPERTISE IN OUTSOURCING

GROUP, INC. (AKA “GEO, INC.”),

Defendant.

This case was brought by a state prisoner proceeding pro se for violations of his civil rights under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion For Discovery Sanctions

On May 25, 2006 Plaintiff Edward Dwayne Ashford (“Plaintiff” or “Ashford”) filed a motion to

compel responses to requests for production of documents and requests for admissions. The motion was

granted in part and denied in part. [Doc. # 48]. On September 22, 2006 Plaintiff filed a motion for

sanctions for Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order. [Doc. # 61]. On November 16,

2006 Defendant filed an opposition. [Doc. # 72]. 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. If a party fails to comply with a previous court order compelling

Case 3:05-cv-00267-BTM-CAB Document 73 Filed 11/27/06 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

27

28

2 05-CV-267 J (CAB)

discovery, the party seeking discovery may file a motion for sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). To

obtain discovery sanctions, however, the movant is typically required to show that the failure to comply

was willful and deliberate. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff admits that Defendant provided responses to the requests as to which the original motion to

compel was granted by the Court. Ashford then claims that the responses were incomplete because they

did not include all of the documents sought. Defendant’s responses stated that they were provided after

“[a] diligent search and reasonable inquiry conducted by this responding party” confirmed that the

produced documents were the only ones presently in possession, custody or control of Defendant. (Pl.’s

Mot. for Sanctions, Ex. 2). Plaintiff provides no evidence that Defendant’s verification of complete

production was made in bad faith. Therefore the motion is DENIED.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories

On November 1, 2006 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his interrogatories. [Doc. #

70]. On November 3, 2006 the Court ordered Defendant to file an opposition by November 15, 2006. 

No opposition to the motion to compel has been filed to date. Discovery in this case closes on January

29, 2007. Defendant is hereby given until December 11, 2006 to file an opposition. No further

extensions will be granted. No reply shall be necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 27, 2006

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00267-BTM-CAB Document 73 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2