Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00689-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR ESCALANTE, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF DELANO, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

CV F 05 0689 AWI DLB

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS

Plaintiff Hector Escalante (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to compel production of documents

on May 1, 2006. The motion was heard on May 12, 2006, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck,

United States Magistrate Judge. On May 16, 2006, the undersigned issued an Order granting the

motion to compel and awarding sanctions to Plaintiff. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a

declaration within 10 days of the Order, detailing the number of hours spent on the motion. 

On July 27, 2006, Defendant City of Delano (“Defendant”) filed an opposition to

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, arguing that the amount of monetary sanctions requested was

excessive, unreasonable and not supported by the record. Defendant also pointed out that

Plaintiff had not complied with the Court’s Order to submit a declaration within 10 days.

On August 31, 2006, Plaintiff filed the Declaration of Attorney Ellen Hammill Ellison in

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 50 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 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

2

support of the request for sanctions. In her declaration, Ms. Ellison states that as of the hearing

held on May 8, 2006, she had expended over five (5) hours in the meet and confer process and

preparing the motion to compel. She further states that she spent an additional three (3) hours

finalizing and making the telephonic appearance. Ms. Ellison states that she has been engaged

exclusively in civil rights litigation for the last fifteen years and bills at the rate of $400.00 per

hour. Plaintiff therefore requests $3,200,00 in monetary sanctions. Ms. Ellison further states

that she did not submit a declaration earlier as ordered by the Court because she believed the

declaration already in the record was sufficient.

On September 11, 2006, Defendant submitted an additional opposition to the request for

sanctions again arguing that the request was excessive, unreasonable and not supported by the

record. 

DISCUSSION 

The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including

reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing

the motion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). The

burden is on the losing party affirmatively to demonstrate that its position was substantially

justified. Id. 

As outlined in the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel, on January 11,

2006, Plaintiff served Request for Production of Documents, Set No. 1. When Defendants failed

to respond, Plaintiff contacted counsel on February 17, 2006 and again on March 23, 2006. 

Defendants served untimely responses on April 7, 2006 with the production of some documents

but objected to others.

Counsel for defendant, a sole practitioner, states that when the discovery was served, he

was in trial in the Fresno County Supreme Court (Garcia v. Paramount Citrus Assn, 03 CEGCG

02781.) He states that trial began on January 4, 2006 and was not completed until the month of

February 2006. As a result defendants were unable to provide timely responses. Counsel states

that is was not his intention to waive objections to plaintiff’s requests. 

As the Court previously stated, counsel’s complete failure to communicate with opposing

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 50 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 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

3

counsel prior to the deadline and his inattention to this matter is warranting of sanctions. 

Counsel has failed to provide substantial justification for his failure to follow the Court’s rules. 

The Court expects all parties to respect the rules and procedures and further expects the parties to

meet the deadlines imposed by the rules and procedures. If this is not possible counsel should, in

good faith, attempt to resolve any difficulties outside of the courtroom. The present motion

likely could have been avoided by communication between counsel. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the Court’s previous Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and based

on the Declaration of Ellen Hammill Ellison, sanctions in the amount of $2,000.00 are awarded

to Plaintiff. These sanctions shall be paid directly to counsel for Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 11, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 50 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 3