Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA DOE, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD

ORDER

In granting most of plaintiffs’ February 15, 2023, motion to compel and its November 8, 

2023, motion to compel, the court reserved ruling on the requests for sanctions in the form of 

attorney fees under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs request a total of 

$22,525.00 for 53 hours worked at an hourly rate of $425.00. For the reasons set forth below, the 

court orders defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento Sheriff’s Office, and Darryl Roderick 

(“defendants”) to pay a total of $11,645.00 ($3,825.00 + $7,820.00) in attorney fees to plaintiffs’ 

counsel.

I. Background

The plaintiffs in this action allege they were coerced into vacating their apartment without 

legal process by Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Darryl Roderick, who refused to provide 

interpretation. (ECF No. 69 at 6.) Plaintiffs proceed on the second amended complaint with 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 88 Filed 05/07/24 Page 1 of 6
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

claims against the County defendants for wrongful eviction; deprivation of property without due 

process of law under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (as to Roderick); intentional discrimination under Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; interference with rights by threats, intimidation, and coercion in 

violation of the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; discrimination in housing in violation of the 

Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51; discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of Cal. 

Gov. Code § 11135; negligence; and mandamus. (See generally, ECF No. 32.)

On February 15, 2023, plaintiffs filed the initial motion to compel at issue here. (ECF No. 

40.) The parties filed a joint statement, and the court granted the motion to compel in part. (ECF 

Nos. 42, 45). Defendants were ordered to produce responsive documents, including computeraided dispatch (“CAD”) reports. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer further on some 

of the other disputes. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiffs requested attorney fees in connection with the February 

15, 2023, motion to compel; the court denied the request without prejudice to renewal if meet and 

confer efforts were unsuccessful (Id. at 9.)

On August 28, 2023, the court held an informal telephonic discovery conference during 

which the undersigned and the parties discussed the ongoing disputes regarding plaintiffs’ request 

for production of documents. (ECF No. 54.) On September 12, 2023, the court held an in-person 

hearing further addressing ongoing disputes pertaining to the issues raised in the February 15, 

2023, motion to compel. (ECF No. 56.)

Plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel on November 8, 2023. (ECF No. 68.) A portion 

of this motion to compel addressed the same CAD reports defendants were ordered to produce in 

connection with the February 15, 2023, motion to compel. Plaintiffs requested attorney fees and 

renewed their prior request for attorney fees. (Id.) The parties filed a joint statement on the 

discovery dispute (ECF No. 69) and appeared via videoconference for a hearing on November 29, 

2023 (ECF No. 71). On December 1, 2023, the court granted the motion in part, ordered the 

parties to meet and confer further on some of the requests, and reserved ruling on plaintiffs’ 

request for sanctions. (ECF No. 72.) As to the requested CAD reports which were the subject of 

the prior motion to compel, the court granted the motion and ordered defendants to produce the

CAD reports with full notes or allow the plaintiffs’ expert access to search for the relevant reports

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 88 Filed 05/07/24 Page 2 of 6
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

with full notes. (Id. at 3.) Pursuant to defendants’ request, the parties were permitted to submit 

supplemental briefing on plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions in the form of attorney fees. 

(ECF No. 73, 76.)

Defendants moved for reconsideration of the order granting the November 8, 2023,

motion to compel. (ECF No. 74.) On April 15, 2024, the motion for reconsideration was denied. 

(ECF No. 85.)

II. Legal Standards

If a motion to compel is granted, the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, 

require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion or its attorney to pay the movant’s 

reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(5)(A). However, the court must not order payment of expenses if the movant did not 

attempt in good faith to obtain discovery without court action, the opposing party’s nondisclosure, 

response, or objection was substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award of 

expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii). If the motion is granted in part and denied in 

part, the court may apportion reasonable expenses for the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).

Rule 37 also provides for separate or additional sanctions for failure to comply with a court’s 

discovery order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); Quadrozzi v. City of New York, 127 F.R.D. 63, 73 (S.D. 

N.Y. 1989) (“Rule 37(b) provides for sanctions against parties who unjustifiably resist 

discovery.”); see also Liew v. Breen, 640 F.2d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 1981).

“The party seeking fees bears the burden of documenting the hours expended in the 

litigation and must submit evidence supporting those hours and the rate claimed.” Welch v. 

Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2007). Under the “lodestar” approach for 

assessing reasonable attorney’s fees, the number of hours reasonably expended is multiplied by a 

reasonable hourly rate. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). A 

reasonable hourly rate is determined by identifying the relevant legal community (the forum 

where the district court sites) and the prevailing market rate in that community for similar 

services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill. Id. at 979-81; see also Kerr v. Screen Extras 

Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir. 1975).

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 88 Filed 05/07/24 Page 3 of 6
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

III. Discussion

Plaintiffs request a total of $22,525.00 for 53 hours worked at an hourly rate of $425.00.

(ECF No. 69 at 23; ECF No. 76 at 8-9.) This request includes fees for three categories of matters:

(1) Plaintiffs renew their February 15, 2023, application for attorney fees, as the court 

allowed in the March 10, 2023, order denying that application without prejudice.

(2) Plaintiffs seek attorney fees under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) for defendants’ noncompliance 

with the March 10, 2023, order, including but not limited to the CAD data.

(3) Plaintiffs seek attorney fees under Rule 37(a)(5) as to defendants’ refusal to comply 

with Interrogatories 3-4 and RFP Nos. 32-33 regarding funding sources, at issue in the 

November 8, 2023, motion to compel.

(ECF No. 76 at 5.)

To begin, the hourly rate of $425.00 requested by plaintiffs’ attorney is reflective of the 

prevailing market rate within the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, for similar 

services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill. The requested rate is a reasonable hourly rate.

Turning to the hours claimed, the court will not award fees for review of discovery 

responses, including supplemental discovery responses. This time was required to be expended

whether or not a motion to compel was filed. Some of the communication with defendants’ 

counsel is also non-compensable. “[F]ees associated with the initial meet and confer process 

logically should not always be included in a fee award.” RG Abrams Ins. v. L. Offs. of C.R. 

Abrams, No. 2:21-CV-00194-FLA-MAA-X, 2021 WL 4974050, at *19 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2021) 

(citing collected cases). “[A] fee award may be proper where a party fails to participate in a good 

faith meet-and-confer, or otherwise obstructs the resolution process.” Id.

In the renewed application on the February 15, 2023, motion to compel, plaintiffs seek 

$8,755.00 in attorney fees for 20.6 hours of time expended. (See ECF No. 69-1 at 8-10.) The 

court declines to award fees for the initial 5 hours expended on review of discovery responses, 

research on objections, and drafting the initial meet and confer letter. The court will award full 

expenses for the 7 hours expended on tasks related to drafting the joint stipulation. The court will 

also award fees for 2 hours out of the 9.6 hours expended on further meet and confer and 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 88 Filed 05/07/24 Page 4 of 6
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

communication with defendants’ counsel in connection with this motion. Thus, the court orders 

defendants to pay attorney fees in the amount of $3,825.00 for 9 hours of work in connection with

the February 15, 2023, motion to compel. 

Plaintiffs seek $13,770.00 ($11,007.50 + $2,762.50) in attorney fees associated with the

November 8, 2023, motion to compel. (See ECF No. 69-1 at 9-10; ECF No. 76 at 8-9.) This 

figure represents 32.4 hours (25.9 + 6.5 hours) of time expended. A portion of the dispute 

involved matters already raised and decided in the prior motion to compel. (ECF No. 72 at 3 (“the 

court already ruled the CAD records are discoverable, and the court already ordered their

production”).) The court considers this fact in ordering that attorney fees be paid. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 37(b).

Reviewing plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration, the court deducts 1 hour for an entry that 

includes review of discovery responses. The court also deducts 5 hours for “Drafting motion for 

sanctions re county” in August of 2023 because it appears this entry pertains to plaintiff’s 

September 6, 2023, motion for sanctions which was deficiently filed and not re-noticed. (See ECF 

No. 57.) As to the remaining 26.4 hours expended, the court finds it would be unjust not to

apportion expenses and deduct some further time. Although the motion to compel was granted in 

part as to the requested records showing federal and state funding to the sheriff’s office, 

defendants’ position was substantially justified as to the overbroad scope of those requests, which

lacked an appropriate time period, and plaintiffs agreed the requests could be narrowed further. 

The parties were ordered to meet and confer further to narrow the requests or reach a stipulation 

or admission that would eliminate plaintiffs’ need for the requested discovery. (ECF No. 72 at 5.). 

The court deducts 8 hours for tasks not directly necessitated by the need to file the motion to 

compel or obstruction by defendants. Defendants are ordered to pay plaintiffs’ counsel an 

additional $7,820.00 for 18.4 hours expended in connection with the February 15, 2023, motion

to compel.

////

////

////

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 88 Filed 05/07/24 Page 5 of 6
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

IV. Conclusion and Order

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ request and renewed request for monetary sanctions (ECF No. 68) are

granted in part and denied in part.

2. Defendants are ordered to pay plaintiffs’ counsel $3,825.00 in attorney fees in 

connection with the February 15, 2023, motion to compel.

3. Defendants are ordered to pay plaintiffs’ counsel an additional $7,820.00 in attorney 

fees in connection with November 8, 2023, motion to compel.

4. Defendants shall pay these fees to plaintiffs’ counsel within 30 days of the date of this 

order.

Dated: May 6, 2024

8

Doe21cv1438.fee

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 88 Filed 05/07/24 Page 6 of 6