Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02620/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02620-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY NO. CIV.S-05-2620 DFL DAD

OF HARTFORD, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CIBUS INSURANCE SERVICES,

INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

_________________________/

This matter is before the court on an order to show cause

why the court should not strike the affirmative defenses pled in the

answer of defendant Jason Gamache due to his failure to comply with

this court’s June 27, 2006, discovery order. The hearing on the

order to show cause occurred on August 28, 2006. Robert L.

Fleischman appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. There was no appearance

on behalf of defendant Gamache, who had been ordered to personally

appear. Mr. Gamache is proceeding pro se. For the reasons explained

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02620-DFL-DAD Document 51 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 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

2

below, the undersigned will recommend that defendant Gamache’s

affirmative defenses be stricken.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides, in relevant

part:

If a party ... fails to obey an order to provide

or permit discovery, ... the court in which the

action is pending may make such orders in regard

to the failure as are just, and among others the

following:

***

(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts

thereof, or staying further proceedings until the

order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or

proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a

judgment by default against the disobedient

party[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).

A district court has discretion in imposing discovery

sanctions. Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997). 

A court is permitted to impose the drastic sanction of dismissal or

default under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) only in “extreme circumstances” where

the violation is “due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the

party.” In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1996). In

determining whether to dismiss an action or enter default pursuant to

Rule 37(b)(2)(C), a district court must consider five 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 [opposing party]; (4) the public policy

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” 

[Payne, 121 F.3d at 507](quoting Malone v. U.S.

Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

Where a court order is violated, the first and

second factors will favor sanctions and the fourth

will cut against them. Id.

Case 2:05-cv-02620-DFL-DAD Document 51 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 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 Defendant Gamache neither filed opposition to the motion nor 1

did he appear at the hearing. 

3

Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.

2004).

Here, by order filed June 27, 2006, the undersigned

granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel interrogatory answers and

responses to a request for production from defendant Gamache. That 1

order required defendant Gamache to provide discovery responses by

July 7, 2006. Although defendant Gamache apparently communicated

with plaintiffs’ counsel after the hearing and expressed an

intention to comply with the court’s order, he did not do so.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to

Rule 37(b)(2)(C). Defendant Gamache again did not file opposition

to the motion and did not appear at the noticed hearing. 

Accordingly, by order filed August 21, 2006, the court awarded

plaintiffs approximately $5,000 to cover the expenses incurred in

bringing their discovery motions; allowed defendant one additional

week to comply with the original discovery order; and issued the

order to show cause which came on for hearing on August 28, 2006. 

As noted, defendant Gamache failed to appear at the show cause

hearing despite having been ordered to personally appear.

This history demonstrates that defendant Gamache has

willfully disregarded the court’s June 27, 2006 discovery order. 

Service of plaintiffs’ discovery motions and the order to show cause

has been properly effectuated. Defendant Gamache has failed to

appear before the court no less than three times and he has not

Case 2:05-cv-02620-DFL-DAD Document 51 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 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

4

opposed any of the motions brought against him. Lesser sanctions in

the form of monetary sanctions have been imposed without success. 

Defendant Gamache’s failure to comply with the court’s orders

undermines the public's interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation as well as the court's need to manage its docket. Under

the Pretrial Scheduling Order in this case, all discovery must be

completed by December 27, 2006. Defendant Gamache has not come

forward to demonstrate any risk of prejudice as a result of striking

his affirmative defenses. While that sanction is a somewhat drastic

one, it should be imposed under these circumstances. Therefore,

while recognizing the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits, the undersigned will recommend that the assigned

district judge strike the affirmative defenses pled in the answer of

defendant Gamache.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the affirmative

defenses pled in the answer of defendant Jason Gamache be stricken

due to his failure to comply with this court’s June 27, 2006,

discovery order.

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)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

Case 2:05-cv-02620-DFL-DAD Document 51 Filed 11/22/06 Page 4 of 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

5

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: November 21, 2006.

DAD:th

Dad1/orders.civil/securityinsurance2620.f&r.strike

Case 2:05-cv-02620-DFL-DAD Document 51 Filed 11/22/06 Page 5 of 5