Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00689-1/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

HECTOR O. ESCALANTE, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

CITY OF DELANO, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-689 AWI/DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER, FOR

ADDITIONAL MONETARY

SANCTIONS OR OTHER

EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS (Doc.

27), DIRECTING CLERK OF

COURT TO RE-SERVE DOC. # 24 

AND VACATING ORAL ARGUMENT

SET FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2006

On May 16, 2006, Magistrate Judge Beck filed an Order

Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (hereinafter referred to as

the May 16 Order). By this Order, plaintiff’s motion to compel

further responses to discovery was granted, defendants being

ordered to provide the further responses within 20 days of

service of the Order. In addition, the Order granted plaintiff’s

motion for sanctions, the Order stating: “Within 10 days of this

Order, Plaintiff shall submit a declaration in support of the

request for sanctions detailing the number of hours spent on this

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/06 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

Plaintiff’s counsel provided a copy of the May 16 Order to 1

defendants’ counsel on July 25, 2006. The court orders re-service

of the May 16 Order so that the parties may comply with its

requirements as set forth in the May 16 Order, including

substantiation of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, the amount of which

has not yet been determined by the Magistrate Judge because of

plaintiff’s failure to submit the required declaration to the

Magistrate Judge. 

2

motion. Defendants may respond to the declaration within 10 days

thereafter.” 

On August 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike

Answer, For Additional Monetary Sanctions or Other Evidentiary

Sanctions based on defendants’ failure to comply with the May 16

Order. 

Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The official docket in this

action establishes that defendants’ counsel was not served with

the May 16 Order. This failure of service was not the fault of

defendants’ counsel but, rather, resulted from a malfunction in

the CM/ECF software. This malfunction prevented automatic e-mail

service of court orders on defendants’ counsel by the Clerk’s

Office. This malfunction has now been corrected and the Clerk of

the Court will be directed to re-serve the May 16 Order.1

Because defendants’ failure to timely comply with the

requirements of the May 16 Order was not caused by defendants’

counsel’s misconduct, plaintiff’s request for additional

sanctions, including terminating sanctions, is not appropriate. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer, For Additional

Monetary Sanctions or Other Evidentiary Sanctions is DENIED.

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/06 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

2. Oral argument set for September 11, 2006 is VACATED

pursuant to Rule 78-230(h), Local Rules of Practice. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve document

number 24 on the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 3