Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01609/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01609-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELEN WATHAN, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

MERCED COUNTY SHERIFF MARK )

N. PAZIN, et al., )

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1609 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS

(Document 18)

Defendants Merced County Sheriff Mark N. Pazin, Merced County Deputy Sheriff

William Blake, Deputy John McKnight and Deputy Russ Sharrock (“Defendants”) filed the

instant motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions on August 25, 2006. Pursuant to

Local Rule 78-230(h), the Court deemed the motion proper for determination without oral

argument.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Helen Wathan and James F. Wathan, individually and as surviving heirs of

decedent James Wathan, Jr., (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant civil rights complaint on December 9,

2005. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Decedent’s Eighth Amendment rights by using

excessive, unreasonable and lethal force when Decedent failed to comply quickly enough with

Defendants’ orders on the night of April 3, 2005. Plaintiffs also allege a state law cause of action

for negligence.

Case 1:05-cv-01609-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants filed the instant motion to compel responses to their First Set of

Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on August 25, 2006. 

Defendants also seek an award of monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion or

otherwise contacted the Court. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party “may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party,

including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books,

documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of

any discoverable matter.” 

On June 13, 2006, each of the Defendants served Plaintiffs with their First Set of

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. The responses were due on July 17,

2006, but Defendants granted an extension to August 8, 2006. After not receiving responses,

Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter on August 11, 2006. Counsel indicated that if

Plaintiffs did not respond by August 18, 2006, Defendants would file a motion to compel and

seek attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs have not filed responses or otherwise contacted Defendants.

Defendants’ motion is therefore GRANTED. By failing to timely respond, Plaintiffs have

waived any objections they may have had to the discovery. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 33(b)(4). Plaintiffs

shall file their responses within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order.

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for sanctions in

the amount of $264.00. This amount is payable by Plaintiffs and their attorney of record within

twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order.

Failure to comply with this order may result in additional sanctions, including dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 10, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01609-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2