Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02530/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02530-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA WRIGHT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2530 MCE EFB

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

This case was before the undersigned on May 16, 2007, on defendant Dr. Roche’s motion

to compel plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories. Jeffrey Vincent appeared as counsel for

defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear. 

Defendants seek an order compelling plaintiff’s verified responses to three

interrogatories. Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that each

interrogatory must be answered separately, and signed by the person making them. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 33(b)(2). Further, all “[a]nswers must be responsive, full, complete, and unevasive.” Pilling

v. General Motors Corp., 45 F.R.D. 366, 369 (D. Utah 1968). 

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-02530-MCE -EFB Document 49 Filed 05/22/07 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

1

 In response to defendants’ interrogatory no. 5, which seeks information regarding “the

economic damages that [plaintiff] claim[s] in this lawsuit,” plaintiff responded, “[d]ecedent

usually took home between $150,00 to $400,000 per year while operating his business. The

amount depended on his needs. He could have taken home considerably more (several million)

if he needed to do so.” In response to interrogatory no. 6 (“ If your answer to interrogatory no. 5

is not zero, describe how you calculate the amount of those damages”), plaintiff replied,

“[p]laintiff will have deposit slips and pay stubs; testimony of Jay Wright’s Controller and

Personal Secretary, Fleur Mann.” Plaintiff provided no response to interrogatory no. 7, which

sought a description of “all documents that support [plaintiff’s] claim for damages.” These

responses were not verified until April 21, 2007, four months after they were served. 

2

Here, plaintiff failed to provide timely, complete and verified responses to defendants’

interrogatories, nos. 5-7, relating to plaintiff’s calculation of damages.1 Having reviewed the

motion and joint statement provided by the parties, the court hereby grants defendants’ motion to

compel and orders plaintiff to provide full, complete, and verified responses to interrogatories

nos. 5-7 within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), the court may require the non-moving party to pay

the moving party’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s

fees. Here, although defendants are entitled to an award of costs and fees, defendants’ counsel

represented at the hearing that defendants have declined to request such award. Accordingly, the

court declines to order plaintiff to pay such costs at the present time. 

However, given the failure of plaintiff’s counsel to appear at the hearing, the court hereby

orders plaintiff’s counsel to show cause, within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order,

why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to appear at the hearing.

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 21, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02530-MCE -EFB Document 49 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 2