Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01554-7/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 Charles T. Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action. Plaintiff filed this action in the Fresno County Superior Court on June 13, 2013. On October 2,

2014, the case was removed to this Court. On October 5, 2015, the Court issued Findings and 

Recommendations that recommended the case proceed on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation against 

Defendants Molina and Hosman, and that all other claims and Defendants be dismissed from the action. 

On November 19, 2015, the District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full. Defendants 

thereafter filed an answer on December 16, 2015.

On December 22, 2015, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. In said order, the 

parties were ordered, inter alia, to provide initial disclosures no later than February 8, 2016. On March 15, 

2016, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide his initial disclosures. On March 31, 2016, 

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. MOLINA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01554 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE INITIAL 

DISCLOSURES AND DENYING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 38]

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE 

INITIAL DISCLOSURES TO DEFENDANTS 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 40 Filed 04/20/16 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

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to compel. On April 7, 2016, Defendants filed a reply to the 

opposition. Therefore, the motion is ripe for decision.

DISCUSSION

In the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order of December 22, 2015, the parties were ordered to 

provide initial disclosures. As for his part, Plaintiff was ordered to comply as follows:

Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with the name and, if known, the location or other 

identifying information (such as inmate number, job classification or assignment) of each 

individual likely to have information about the events described in his complaint or his 

claims of injury or damage. In addition, Plaintiff shall describe, generally, the information 

each individual so identified is believed to possess.

Plaintiff shall also provide copies of, or a list describing (by category and location), all 

documents or other tangible things in his possession, custody or control which he may use 

to support the allegation(s) in his complaint, or his claims or injury of damage.

(ECF No. 21 at 1-2.)

Defendants state they provided Plaintiff with their initial disclosures on February 4, 2016. 

Defendants state that Plaintiff on the other hand has not only failed, but refused to provide his initial 

disclosures. Defendants state they mailed a request to Plaintiff on February 25, 2016, to comply with 

initial disclosures, but Plaintiff responded that he would not be doing so. Plaintiff instead directed 

Defendants to his pleadings and attachment to his pleadings. Defendants request an order compelling 

Plaintiff to provide initial disclosures and further request that the Court impose sanctions under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37 which may include (1) prohibiting Plaintiff from supporting or opposing designated claims, (2) 

prohibiting Plaintiff from introducing designated matters into evidence, and (3) dismissing the action. At a 

minimum, Defendants request the sum of $425.00 to reimburse their expenses associated with this motion.

Plaintiff opposes the motion and claims it is frivolous, brought in bad faith, and has no reasonable 

chance of success. Plaintiff acknowledges that he did not provide Defendants with anything in response to 

the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order concerning initial disclosures; rather, he directed Defendants

to his pleadings and the attachments to his pleadings believing this was sufficient for substantial 

compliance with the Court’s order. Plaintiff further advised Defendants that he would provide additional 

disclosures as they became available to him, and that Defendants had equal access to documents sought 

and therefore he need not provide them.

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 40 Filed 04/20/16 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

I. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(A), if a party “fails to make a disclosure 

required by Rule 26(a), any other party may move to compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions.” 

Before such a motion is made, the moving party must “in good faith” confer or attempt to confer with the 

party that has failed to make the disclosure in an effort to avoid court involvement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(1). If the motion to compel is successful, the Court must require the party whose conduct 

necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable 

expenses, including attorney's fees, unless the conduct was substantially justified or other circumstances 

make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a)(5)(A). Rule 37(c)(1) further provides that a party 

who fails to make initial disclosures “is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence 

on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” In 

addition to this evidence preclusion sanction, the Court may “order payment of the reasonable expenses, 

including attorney's fees, caused by the failure” to provide initial disclosures. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1)(A). 

Finally, Rule 37(b)(2)(C) provides for sanctions for violation of a Court's discovery order, and requires the 

Court to “order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable 

expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or 

other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” The burden is on Plaintiff to show that his failure 

to provide initial disclosures was substantially justified or harmless to avoid sanctions. See Yeti By Molly 

Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001).

II. Analysis

A. Motion to Compel

Based on the factual background of this dispute, it is clear that Plaintiff has failed to abide by the 

plain language of the Court’s order directing him to provide initial disclosures as specified. It is further 

clear that Defendants have attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to obtain his initial disclosures, but 

Plaintiff has refused and instead directed Defendants to his initial pleadings and their attachments. 

Plaintiff is wrong in contending that he had no obligation beyond referencing his pleadings and 

attachments. See, e.g., Holak v. Kmart Corp., 2014 WL 2565902, at *7 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 40 Filed 04/20/16 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

general reference to “putative class members, as alleged in the operative complaint” was insufficient 

disclosure under Rule 26 which required parties to provide “the name and, if known, the address and 

telephone number” of relevant witnesses); Hash v. Cate, 2012 WL 6043966, at * 4 (N.D. Cal. 2012) 

(“citing to the complaint does not satisfy Plaintiff’s discovery obligations, because the complaint contains 

only allegations, while documents produced in discovery are meant to provide verified factual information 

for use at trial or in motion work”). Therefore, he was not substantially justified for his non-disclosure on 

the basis of having had no obligation to do so.

Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to provide initial disclosures is GRANTED. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1)(A).

B. Motion for Sanctions

Defendants further seek monetary and evidentiary sanctions based on Plaintiff's violation of the 

Court's order requiring that the parties exchange initial disclosures. As stated above, Plaintiff claims to 

have demonstrated substantial justification for his complete failure to provide initial disclosures by 

referencing his complaint. 

District courts enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties, amend the 

pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(3). Once entered by the court, a 

scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(d). “A 

scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by 

counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir.1992) (internal 

citation and quotations omitted). Disregard of the terms of the scheduling order “undermine[s] the court's 

ability to control its docket, disrupt[s] the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward[s] the indolent 

and the cavalier.” Id. The district court “is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 

litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order ... will not be disturbed unless 

they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th 

Cir.2011) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

As noted above, Defendants attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff in an attempt to obtain his 

initial disclosures, and Plaintiff responded by refusing to provide said disclosures, opting instead to merely 

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 40 Filed 04/20/16 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

refer Defendants back to his pleadings. As stated above, Plaintiff’s reference to his pleadings was 

completely insufficient.

Plaintiff further fails to meet his burden of showing that his failure to disclose was harmless. As 

noted by Defendants, Plaintiff has not provided them with the name of any witness or other individual 

likely to have knowledge of the events alleged in the complaint; nor has he identified what information 

they might have. Plaintiff has further failed to provide Defendant with any documents, or list describing 

documents, which he may use to support his allegation in his complaint. The failure to provide these 

disclosures is not harmless, because Defendants cannot be expected to guess the identity of witnesses or 

documents Plaintiff may seek to use to prove his allegations. Merely referencing the complaint 

undermines the very purpose of providing initial disclosures. Moreover, Defendants, as well as the Court, 

have now spent substantial time and resources addressing this issue when, indeed, it should not have been 

an issue and could have been avoided simply by Plaintiff providing Defendants with a list of witnesses and 

documents he intends to use or list describing said documents.

Although a close call, based on the fact that Plaintiff is incarcerated and untrained in the law, the 

Court finds that sanctions should not be awarded at present. Plaintiff will be compelled to provide his 

initial disclosures, and in the event he fails to so provide, Defendants may renew their motion for

sanctions. Possible sanctions may include prohibiting Plaintiff from supporting his claims with witnesses 

and documentary evidence, or dismissal of his case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Defendants’ motion to compel is GRANTED;

2) Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide his initial disclosures as set forth in the Court’s Discovery and 

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 21) within thirty (30) days;

3) Defendants’ motion for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01554-LJO-BAM Document 40 Filed 04/20/16 Page 5 of 5