Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05961/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05961-0/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS D. PORTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

)

G. DAVIS, BADGE # 776; BAGBY, )

BADGE # 933; T. BROWN, BADGE )

# 711; ERIC MATLOCK; CITY OF )

BAKERSFIELD; and DOES 1 through )

20, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

CASE NO. 1:04cv5961 TAG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

DISCOVERY 

(Doc. 18)

Defendants move this Court for an order requiring the following items: (1) an order

compelling answers to Interrogatories, (2) an order compelling responses to production of documents

requests, and (3) an order deeming all Requests for Admissions admitted. (Doc. 18). Defendants

also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff for his failure to timely respond to the above requests. (Doc.

18). 

Plaintiff failed to provide responses to the above mentioned discovery requests, despite

Defendants’ repeated requests, and failed to respond to Defendants’ instant motion to compel

responses to discovery. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on July 13, 2004. (Court Doc. 1). On September 14,

2004, Defendants answered the complaint. (Court Doc. 7). Discovery cut-off is June 17, 2005,

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 19 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 7
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

expert discovery cut-off is September 2, 2005, the pretrial conference is set for January 6, 2006, and

trial is set for February 27, 2006. (Court Doc. 11).

On January 27, 2005, Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery requests consisting of a

Request for Production of Documents, Interrogatories and a Request for Admissions. (Court Doc.

18). Discovery responses were not received by Defendants by the March 3, 2005 deadline. 

Defendants submitted a “meet and confer” letter to Plaintiff on March 10, 2005, advising him that if

discovery responses were not received within 10 days, a motion to compel responses would be filed

with the Court. (Court Doc. 18). On March 15, 2005, at Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff assured

Defendants that discovery responses were forthcoming. (Court Doc. 18). Defendants indicate that,

to date, they have received no responses to their discovery requests. (Court Doc. 18).

Defendants additionally ask for sanctions in the amount of not less than $1,500.00 for

“researching and preparing” the motion to compel. (Court Doc. 18). Counsel bills at $150.00 per

hour and spent 10 hours preparing the motion. (Court Doc. 18).

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

A. Discovery overview

The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair

contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible,” United

States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S.Ct. 983, 987 (1958), and to narrow and clarify

the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 388 (1947).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:

Parties 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. For good cause, the court may order

discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant

information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be

allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v.

Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty

& Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990). 

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 19 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 7
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

3

B. Interrogatories

Functions of interrogatories include obtaining evidence, information which may lead to

evidence and admissions, and to narrow issues to be tried. United States v. West Virginia Pulp and

Paper Co., 36 F.R.D. 250, 252 (S.D. N.Y. 1964). The party answering interrogatories must furnish

“such information as is available to the party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)

requires an interrogatory to be answered “fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in

which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the

interrogatory is not objectionable.” “The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served

shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the

interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). 

“Parties must provide true, explicit, responsive, complete, and candid answers to

interrogatories.” Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp., 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D. Pa. 1996). If a responding

party is unable to supply requested information, “the party may not simply refuse to answer, but must

state under oath that he is unable to provide the information and ‘set forth the efforts he used to

obtain the information.’” Hansel, 169 F.R.D. at 305 (quoting Milner v. National School of Health

Tech., 73 F.R.D. 628, 632 (E.D. Pa. 1977)). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 “is to be given a broad and liberal

interpretation in the interest of according to the parties the fullest knowledge of the facts and of

clarifying and narrowing the issues.” West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 36 F.R.D. at 252. 

“All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity. Any ground

not stated in a timely objection is waived . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The propounding party may

seek an order to compel further responses regarding “an objection to or other failure to answer an

interrogatory.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5); see, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(B).

Plaintiff has failed to comply with his discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 by

failing to timely answer Defendants’ interrogatories. As noted by Defendants, in the absence of

these responses, Defendants are unable to effectively defend their interests and thus are prejudiced. 

(Court Doc. 18). Defendants are entitled to the information that Plaintiff has failed to provide. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff shall provide answers to Defendants’ Interrogatories

on or before June 3, 2005. Moreover, any objections to the Defendants’ Interrogatories were waived

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 19 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 7
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

4

by Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Therefore,

Plaintiff’s answers to the interrogatories shall be made without objection.

C. Request for Production of Documents

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) permits a requesting party to ask for documents “which are in the

possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)

requires a written response to a request for production to “state, with respect to each item or

category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless the request is

objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated.” A party is obligated to

produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents or other things which are in its

“possession, custody or control” on the date specified in the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a); Norman

Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron & Metal Co., 576 F.Supp. 511, 512 (W.D. Pa. 1983). The

propounding party may seek an order for further disclosure regarding “any objection to or other

failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection requested.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Failure to respond to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives all

objections, including privilege and work product, absent an extension of time to respond or a

showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(4), Richmark Corp. V. Timber Falling Consultants,

959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).

Plaintiff has failed to comply with its discovery obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 by

failing to timely respond to Defendants’ request for production of documents. As noted by

Defendants, in the absence of these responses, Defendants are not able to effectively defend their

interests and thus are prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond. (Court Doc. 18). 

Defendants are entitled to responses to their production requests, and, it is apparent, that Plaintiff has

utterly failed to produce any response to their request. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff

shall respond to Defendants’ request for production of documents on or before June 3, 2005. 

Further, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(4), Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ request for

production of documents shall be made without objection, including privilege and work product.

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 19 Filed 05/19/05 Page 4 of 7
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

5

D. Admissions Deemed Admitted

Defendants contend Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the requests for admission

constitutes automatic admissions to them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) addresses requests for admission and

provides in pertinent part:

A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission . . . of the

truth of any matters . . . set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of

fact or of the application of law to fact . . .

. . . The matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request . . . the

party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a

written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by the

party’s attorney . . . . 

“Failure to respond to requests for admissions results in automatic admission of the matters

requested. . . . No motion to establish the admissions is needed because Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 36(a) is self executing.” Federal Trade Comm. v. Medicor, LLC, 217 F.Supp.2d 1048,

1053 (C.D. Ca. 2002). “The failure to respond to admissions can effectively deprive a party of the

opportunity to contest the merits of the case.” In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415, 421 (5th Cir. 2001).

Defendants served requests on January 27, 2005, and responses were therefore due on March

3, 2005. (Court Doc. 18). Defendants afforded Plaintiff an additional 18 days, until March 21, 2005,

in which to provide responses; however, Plaintiff failed to respond. Plaintiff failed to timely respond

to Defendants’ requests for admission. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a), all requests

for admission are admitted. 

E. Sanctions

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), the party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled

to his or her expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, “incurred in making the motion,” unless

the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing the motion or other circumstances

that make such an award unjust. The burden is on the losing party to affirmatively demonstrate that

its position was substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), Advisory Comm. Notes (1970). 

This motion was necessary to gain compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34. The evidence

before the Court is such that Plaintiff has wilfully failed to respond. The trial date of

February 27, 2006, is fast approaching and Plaintiff has, to date, provided essentially no information

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 19 Filed 05/19/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

to Defendants in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33 and 34. The Court finds that good cause exists to

impose sanctions upon Plaintiff for wilfully failing to provide discovery. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions. Defendants’

counsel seeks sanctions equivalent to ten hours of time at his hourly rate for preparing the instant

motion. Defendants’ counsel asks for an hourly rate of $150.00 per hour. Based on the Court’s

experience with other similar requests, the undersigned finds that the requested hourly rate is a

reasonable rate in this District and the time spent in researching and preparing the instant motion is

reasonable for the services provided by Defendants’ counsel. Accordingly, the Court awards to

Defendants 10 hours at $150.00 per hour for an award of $1,500.00 payable by Plaintiff. 

ORDERS

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to

Discovery and makes the following orders: 

1. Defendants’ motion to compel responses to interrogatories is GRANTED.

( Doc. 18). 

2. Defendants’ motion to compel responses to the requests for production of

documents is GRANTED. (Doc. 18).

3. Defendants’ motion for an order deeming admitted Defendants’ requests for

admissions is GRANTED. (Doc. 18). The requests for admissions are

admitted based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond. 

4. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is GRANTED.

(Doc. 18). Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and awarded to Defendants

in the amount of $1,500.00. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $1,500.00 sanction

award to Defendants on or before June 3, 2005.

5. Plaintiff is ordered to serve answers to Defendants’ Interrogatories, without

objections, on or before June 3, 2005. 

6. Plaintiff is ordered to produce all documents responsive to Defendants’

request for production, without objections, and to serve written responses, on

or before June 3, 2005.

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 19 Filed 05/19/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT IN THE

IMPOSITION OF FURTHER SANCTIONS INCLUDING MONETARY, ISSUE, AND

TERMINATING SANCTIONS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 19 Filed 05/19/05 Page 7 of 7