Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

 ) 

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

CV F 02 6583 AWI SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES (DOC. 266)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TERRY

D. HAMILTON TO RESPOND TO

INTERROGATORIES AND TO PRODUCE

DOCUMENTS NO LATER THAN AUGUST

12, 2005

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TERRY

D. HAMILTON TO PAY ATTORNEY’S

FEES NO LATER THAN AUGUST 12,

2005

Plaintiffs are proceeding with counsel with a civil action.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

I. Background

On June 23, 2005, Defendants Dolly G. Willms, V. R. McClune,

Lend-Teck Financial, Inc., and Redwood Trust Deed Services filed

a motion to compel discovery responses to be heard on July 14,

2005. The motion included declarations of Steven R. Stoker and

Donald J. Pool as well as exhibits consisting of the pertinent

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 281 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 6
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

discovery requests.

A search of the docket reveals that no opposition to the

motion was filed. On July 11, 2005, Defendants filed notice of

non-opposition to the motion; Defendants state that since the

motion was filed, Defendants received responses to the

interrogatories propounded by Redwood Trust Deed Services, but

they received no responses to the interrogatories propounded by

Defendants Dolly G. Willms, Lend-Teck Financial, Inc., or Victor

R. McClune to Plaintiff Terry Hamilton; further, they received no

responses or compliance with the requests for production.

By separate order, the hearing on the motion to compel was

vacated and submitted for decision.

II. Analysis

A. Legal Standard

A party, upon reasonable notice and after certifying that

the parties have met in a good faith effort to resolve the

dispute and secure the material without court action, may apply

for an order compelling disclosure or discovery, or further

disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); Local Rule 37-

251. A stipulation regarding the discovery disagreement must be

filed except in cases involving a complete and total failure to

respond to a discovery request or order, and when the only relief

sought by the motion is the imposition of sanctions. Local Rule

37-251(e).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) provides:

(d) Failure of Party to Attend at Own Deposition

or Serve Answers to Interrogatories or Respond to

Request for Inspection. If a party or an officer,

director, or managing agent of a party or a person

designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to testify

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 281 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 6
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

on behalf of a party fails (1) to appear before the

officer who is to take the deposition, after being

served with a proper notice, or (2) to serve answers

or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33,

after proper service of the interrogatories, or 

(3) to serve a written response to a request for

inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper

service of the request, the court in which the action

is pending on motion may make such orders in regard

to the failure as are just, and among others it may

take any action authorized under subparagraphs (A), (B),

and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) of this rule. Any motion

specifying a failure under clause (2) or (3) of this

subdivision shall include a certification that the

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to

confer with the party failing to answer or respond 

in an effort to obtain such answer or response without

court action. In lieu of any order or in addition

thereto, the court shall require the party failing

to act or the attorney advising that party or both

to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's

fees, caused by the failure unless the court finds

that the failure was substantially justified or that

other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

The failure to act described in this subdivision

may not be excused on the ground that the discovery

sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act

has a pending motion for a protective order as provided

by Rule 26(c).

Further, Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37(a)(4)(A) states:

If the motion is granted or if the disclosure or

requested discovery is provided after the motion 

is filed, the court shall, after affording an 

opportunity to be heard, require the party or

deponent whose conduct necessitated the

motion or the party or attorney advising such

conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party

the reasonable expenses incurred in making the 

motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees,

unless the court finds that the motion was filed

without the movant’s first making a good faith 

effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery 

without court action, or that the opposing party’s

nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially

justified, or that other circumstances make an

award of expenses unjust.

The scope of discovery is established. Parties have a right

to obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is

relevant to the claim or defense of any party; further, for good

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 281 Filed 07/13/05 Page 3 of 6
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

cause shown, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant

to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1). To be relevant, evidence must have a "tendency to make

the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action more probable or less probable than

it would be without the evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Id. Information relevant to a party’s claim

or defense includes information that a party may use to support

its denial or rebuttal of the claims or defenses of another

party. Adv. Comm. Note to 2000 Amendment; see Schwarzer, Tashima

and Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide, Federal Civil Procedure

Before Trial, § 11:21.2. Information relevant to the subject

matter of the action, available with leave of court for good

cause shown, means information that might reasonably assist a

party in evaluating a case, preparing for trial, or facilitating

settlement. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 506-07 (1947).

B. Discovery

Defendants established by declaration that the motion was

brought due to the complete and total failure of Plaintiff to

respond to the discovery requests; thus, a joint statement

regarding a discovery disagreement is not required. Further, the

declarations and exhibits establish that the moving defendants

attempted in good faith to meet and confer with respect to the

discovery, but those efforts were unsuccessful.

Defendants propounded interrogatories and requests for

production to Plaintiff Terry D. Hamilton, and served them on

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 281 Filed 07/13/05 Page 4 of 6
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

 Because the hearing is being vacated, the Court will not award fees for counsel’s preparation and

attendance at the hearing, which will be eliminated.

5

Plaintiff’s counsel on or about April 1, 2005. The responses

sought by Defendants’ interrogatories, and the documents sought

by Defendants’ requests for production, concern relevant matters.

No motion for a protective order has been filed. Responses were

due on or about May 4, 2005, but were not received.

C. Attorney’s Fees

The declarations of attorneys Pool and Stoker establish that

attorney Stoker, whose hourly rate is $200.00, spent 7.7 hours

preparing the notice, motion, and supporting documents.1 The

hourly rate and amount of time spent was reasonable.

 The Court does not find that the failure to respond to the

discovery requests was substantially justified or that other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that 

1. Defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses and for

attorney’s fees IS GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff Terry Hamilton IS DIRECTED to respond no later

than August 12, 2005, to Defendant Dolly G. Willm’s

interrogatories to Terry D. Hamilton, set no. one; Defendant

Lend-Teck Financial, Inc.’s interrogatories to Terry D. Hamilton,

set no. one; and Defendant Victor R. McClune’s interrogatories to

Terry D. Hamilton, set no. one; and

3. Plaintiff Terry Hamilton IS DIRECTED to respond to, and

to provide the documents requested by, no later than August 12,

2005, Defendant Redwood Trust Deed Services, Inc.’s request for

production of documents and things to Terry D. Hamilton, set no.

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 281 Filed 07/13/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

one; Defendant Dolly G. Willms’ request for production of

documents and things to Terry D. Hamilton, set no. one; Defendant

Lend-Teck Financial, Inc.’s request for production of documents

and things to Terry D. Hamilton, set no. one; and Defendant

Victor R. McClune’s request for production of documents and

things to Terry D. Hamilton, set no. one; and

4. Plaintiff Terry D. Hamilton IS DIRECTED to pay no later

than August 12, 2005, $1,540.00 in attorney’s fees to the law

firm of Powell & Pool, located at 7522 N. Colonial Avenue, suite

100, Fresno, California 93711-5706.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 281 Filed 07/13/05 Page 6 of 6