Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744-22/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

By order filed July 28, 2008, the Court took the matter under submission.

2

Concurrently with the instant motion, defendants filed a bill of costs, in which

defendants sought costs in the amount of $13,054.58, pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1). By notice

filed September 4, 2008, the Clerk determined defendants were entitled to costs in the

amount of $3,938.69. The Court will determine herein whether defendants are entitled to

recover, under either Rule 37(c)(2) or Rule 68(d), the costs to which the Clerk has

determined defendants are not entitled under Rule 54, specifically, $9,115.89.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 06-3744 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

Before the Court is defendants Greg Cannedy and Mike Sobek’s “Motion for

Discovery Sanctions Against Plaintiff,” filed June 20, 2008. Plaintiff Nathaniel Willingham

has filed opposition, to which defendants have replied. Having read and considered the

papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1

In their motion, defendants seek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $93,074.80 and

costs in the amount of $13,054.58, pursuant to Rule 37(c)(2) and Rule 68(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule.2

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 200 Filed 09/25/08 Page 1 of 4
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

A. Rule 37(c)(2)

Rule 37(c)(2) provides that “[i]f a party fails to admit what is requested [in a request

for admission] and if the requesting party later proves . . . the matter true, the requesting

party may move that the party who failed to admit pay the reasonable expenses, including

attorney’s fees, incurred in making that proof.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2). An award of

expenses under Rule 37(c)(2) is improper, however, where “the admission sought was of

no substantial importance” or “the party failing to admit had a reasonable ground to believe

that it might prevail on the matter.” See id.

Here, defendants seek an award of fees and costs based on plaintiff’s having denied

defendants’ request that he admit the following facts: (1) plaintiff consumed alcohol on the

date he was arrested; (2) plaintiff was intoxicated at the time he was arrested;

(3) plaintiff stepped outside of his apartment of his own volition and was in public at the

time of the arrest; and (4) the amount of force or contact used by the arresting officers was

reasonable.

The Court, as discussed below, finds an award of either fees or costs, pursuant to

Rule 37(c)(2), would be improper.

Consumption of Alcohol. Because plaintiff’s initial and amended complaints both

conceded that plaintiff had consumed alcohol on the date he was arrested, (see Compl.

¶ 18; Amended Compl. ¶ 20), a request for an admission that plaintiff consumed alcohol on

the date of the arrest was of no substantial importance. Further, plaintiff attests, (see

Willingham Decl., filed July 21, 2008, ¶ 5.f.), and defendants have not disputed, that plaintiff

advised defendants he had mistakenly denied their request for an admission that he had

consumed alcohol.

Intoxication. Defendants did not need to prove, nor was there a finding by the jury

that, plaintiff was, in fact, intoxicated; rather, defendants proved that probable cause

existed to believe plaintiff was intoxicated. Further, the evidence on the issue was not

undisputed; rather, plaintiff consistently contended he was not intoxicated, and, at trial,

offered the testimony of two witnesses, in addition to his own testimony, to that effect. 

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 200 Filed 09/25/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff did not allege a Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force.

3

Under the circumstances, plaintiff had a “reasonable ground to believe that [he] might

prevail on the [issue].” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2)(C).

Voluntary Departure From Apartment. Plaintiff consistently contended he left the

apartment solely at defendants’ direction, and so testified at trial. The opposing evidence

on the issue consisted of testimony given by the arresting officers. Under such

circumstances, plaintiff had a reasonable ground to believe he might prevail on the issue.

Reasonableness of Force. Defendants’ request for an admission as to their

reasonable use of force was relevant to plaintiff’s battery claim, which claim was derivative

of plaintiff’s claim that he was arrested without probable cause.3

 Specifically, plaintiff’s

battery claim was based on the theory that because the arrest was unlawful, defendants’

use of handcuffs constituted a battery. (See Amended Compl. ¶ 148.) Because, as

discussed above, plaintiff had a reasonable basis for his belief he might prevail on the issue

of probable cause, plaintiff likewise had a reasonable basis for his belief he might prevail on

the battery claim.

B. Rule 68(d)

On or about March 20, 2008, defendants served on plaintiff an offer, pursuant to

Rule 68, to allow entry of judgment against them in the amount of $15,000. (See Gilbert

Decl. Ex. F.) Plaintiff did not accept the offer. Based on the jury’s verdict in favor of

defendants, the Clerk entered judgment in favor of defendants.

Under Rule 68(d), “[i]f the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more

favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer

was made.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(d). Rule 68(d), however, “is inapplicable” where, as

here, “the defendant obtains judgment.” See MRO Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Co.,

197 F. 3d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding where defendant obtains judgment,

defendant’s motion for fees and costs is properly brought under Rule 54(d)(2), not under

Rule 68).

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 200 Filed 09/25/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to an award of fees or costs under Rule

68(d).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions is hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 200 Filed 09/25/08 Page 4 of 4