Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02415/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02415-30/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2415 JAM KJM P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion asking the court to enter judgment against the

defendants for failing to comply with the court’s order of January 22, 2009, which directed them

to provide supplemental responses to several of plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants have

responded with counsel’s declaration, showing that he inadvertently failed to calendar the date

for providing the discovery and with copies of the discovery responses actually now provided. In

reply, plaintiff takes issue with the responses, characterizing most of them as false and just as

evasive as the original responses addressed in the motion to compel and in the court’s order.

Under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may

enter judgment against a party for disobeying a discovery order. In National Hockey League v.

Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976), the Supreme Court considered whether a

Case 2:03-cv-02415-JAM-CKD Document 137 Filed 03/04/10 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

2

district court abused its discretion in dismissing an action as the result of plaintiffs’ failure to

timely answer interrogatories. It found that the court’s order was supported by the plaintiffs’

“flagrant bad faith” and “callous disregard” of their responsibility to comply with discovery

requests. Id. at 643. The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that before a district court may enter

terminating sanctions in response to discovery violations, a court must consider several factors: 

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its

docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the party asking for sanctions, (4) the policy favoring

disposition of litigation on its merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. The fifth

factor requires the court to evaluate whether the district court has imposed less drastic sanctions

to no effect and whether it warned the party that terminating sanctions may be imposed. See 

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091,

1096 (9th Cir. 2007). 

In this case, the court does not find that respondent’s counsel acted willfully or in

bad faith in delaying the responses necessitated by the court’s order of January 22, 2009, nor does

it find a pattern of willful refusals to comply with court orders or with discovery obligations. 

Moreover, the delay in providing these responses has not impacted the court’s ability to manage

this case, in light of the lengthy history of the litigation, and its current posture. Although

plaintiff states broadly that he has been prejudiced, he has not described the impact of the delay

on his ability to pursue the action. Finally, the court did not warn defendants that any delay in

responding or failure to respond would result in the entry of judgment. This court does not find

the entry of judgment for plaintiff to be an appropriate sanction.

In his reply, as noted, plaintiff complains that defendants’ answers are false and

evasive. For the most part, defendants have averred they do not recall the specifics of plaintiff’s

requests or could not find responsive documents after diligent searches; they also commit to

make plaintiff’s C-file available to him for inspection. See, e.g., Declaration of Jeffrey Steele,

Ex. A, No. 6. Although plaintiff indicates in a declaration that he has studiously reviewed his CCase 2:03-cv-02415-JAM-CKD Document 137 Filed 03/04/10 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

3

file at least annually without finding any of the documents he says must exist, he has not pointed

to anything concrete that casts doubt on defendants’ answers. Alexander v. Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 128 (D.D.C. 1998) (plaintiff’s burden to compel discovery); see also

Equal Rights Center v. Post Properties, Inc., 246 F.R.D. 29, 32 (D.D.C. 2007) (party moving to

compel discovery has the burden of proving that an answer to an interrogatory was incomplete or

evasive). This court does not find that defendants’ answers provide any basis for the imposition

of terminating sanctions, and certainly not in the absence of a more complete showing by

plaintiff. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for judgment (docket

no. 127) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: March 4, 2010. 

2

chat2415.mfj

Case 2:03-cv-02415-JAM-CKD Document 137 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 3