Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00615-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAQUES FEARENCE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

L. L. SCHULTEIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:08-cv-00615-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 

SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 37(b)

(Doc. 55.)

I. BACKGROUND

Jaques Fearence ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed 

by Plaintiff on November 22, 2013, against defendants Hopkins, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett for 

failure to protect Plaintiff, and against defendants Hopkins, Busby, Davis, Duffy, and Beckett 

for conspiracy to use excessive force. (Doc. 64.) 

On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery sanctions under Rule 

37(b). (Doc. 55.) On September 30, 2013, Defendants filed an opposition. (Doc. 56.) 

Plaintiff did not file a reply to the opposition. (Court Record.)

II. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS -- RULE 37(b) 

Under Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party fails to obey an 

order to provide or permit discovery, the court may issue further just orders which may include 

compelling compliance with the order or imposing sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 73 Filed 02/14/14 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

A. Plaintiff's Motion

Plaintiff requests the imposition of sanctions upon Defendants based on Defendants’ 

failure to comply with the forty-five day deadline to provide discovery responses, established in 

the Court’s discovery/scheduling order of July 15, 2013. Plaintiff argues that as of September 

12, 2013,1the date of Plaintiff's motion, the Court’s deadline had expired, and Defendants had 

not responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff declares that on July 25, 2013, he

served Defendants with a Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories, ensuring 

that Defendants had forty-five days in which to respond. (Declaration of Jaques Fearence, Doc. 

55 at 2 ¶6.) On September 4, 2013, Plaintiff received a phone call from defense counsel Elliott 

T. Seals, informing Plaintiff that the forty-five day deadline for responses would not be met, 

and requesting an extension of time. (Id. ¶¶2,3.) Plaintiff informed defense counsel that 

Plaintiff did not have the authority to extend the deadline, and that defense counsel would have 

to file a motion for extension of time with the court. (Id. ¶¶5,6.) 

B. Defendants’ Opposition

Defendants argue that they complied with the court’s deadline to respond to discovery 

requests and timely served Plaintiff with their responses. Defendants assert that Plaintiff served 

each Defendant with a set of Interrogatories and a set of Requests for Production of Documents 

on July 25, 2013, causing Defendants’ responses to be due forty-five days later on September 9, 

2013. (Declaration of Jaques Fearence, Doc. 55 at 2 ¶6; Doc. 51.) Defense counsel asserts that 

on September 4, 2013, he spoke with Plaintiff on the phone and informed him that he would 

need additional time to respond to the discovery requests. Because of Plaintiff’s unwillingness 

to agree to an extension of time, Defendants filed a motion for extension of time with the court 

on September 6, 2013. (Doc. 53.) On September 12, 2013, the court granted Defendants a 

fourteen-day extension of time, and Defendants assert that they served their responses on 

Plaintiff on September 24, 2013, within the time provided by the Court’s September 12, 2013 

order. (Doc. 54.)

 

1Plaintiff's motion for sanctions was signed on September 12, 2013 and filed on September 16, 2013. 

(Doc. 55 at 3.)

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 73 Filed 02/14/14 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

C. Discussion

The court’s discovery/scheduling order, issued on July 15, 2013, informed the parties 

that “[r]esponses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five (45) days after the request 

is first served.” (Doc. 51 at 1 ¶2.) Plaintiff served his requests for discovery on Defendants on 

July 25, 2013, causing Defendants’ responses to be due by September 9, 2013. (Declaration of 

Jaques Fearence, Doc. 55 at 2 ¶6.) Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ assertion that they 

served their discovery responses on September 24, 2013. (Doc. 56 at 2:9-10.) Taking 

Defendants’ assertion as true, their responses were not untimely because on September 12, 

2013, the Court granted Defendants fourteen days in which to file their discovery responses. 

(Doc. 54.) Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for 

discovery sanctions, filed on September 16, 2013, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:08-cv-00615-SAB Document 73 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 3