Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02330/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02330-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441pi Removal- Personal Injury

---

1 

18cv2330 JM(NLS) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARSHALL RAY GLOVER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, 

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 18cv2330 JM(NLS) 

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 

FOR SANCTIONS 

On December 4, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to abide by Magistrate Judge Stormes’ earlier order to 

supplement his initial disclosure and discovery responses by November 1, 2019. (Doc. No. 

31.) After originally taking the motion under submission, the court reset the motion for 

hearing on February 3, 2020. (See Doc. Nos. 38, 48.) Defense counsel Mr. Daniel Struck 

and Mr. Matthew Mahoney appeared at the hearing but plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. David 

Kaufman, did not. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. 

 Defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 41(b) and Rule 37 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. Defendant argues that dismissal under either of the Rules is warranted 

because: Plaintiff has: (1) refused to participate in the filing of a joint discovery motion; 

(2) refused to provide it with information/documentation regarding the five aliases Plaintiff 

Case 3:18-cv-02330-JM-NLS Document 58 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

18cv2330 JM(NLS) 

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

has used in the past or provide it with his past medical history, institutional history, prior 

drug use, etc. that Judge Stormes has deemed relevant. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 14-21.)1

 

 Rule 41(b) provides “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules 

or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b). “A dismissal for lack of prosecution must be supported by a showing of 

unreasonable delay.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 

Nealey v. Transp. Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1280 (9th Cir. 1980)). “A 

district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing 

a case, but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 

1424 (citing Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981)). Local 

Rule 83.1(a) allows the court to dismiss an action if a party or counsel fails to comply with 

the rules of the District, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “or with any order of the 

court.” CivLR 83.1(a). 

 Rule 37 allows for terminating sanctions to be levied against a party for not obeying 

an order to supplement discovery responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C). It is so harsh a 

penalty that it should only be imposed as a sanction in extreme circumstances. Henderson, 

779 F.2d at 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). When sanctions for dismissal are considered, the court 

1 Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff’s counsel entered the Ocean View property where 

Plaintiff’s alleged injury took place and illegally took photographs without prior 

authorization in contravention of Rule 34; and Mr. Kaufman’s behavior has held it 

“hostage” and prevented it from obtaining the relevant information necessary for it to 

mount a defense. (Id. at 14.) Defendant seeks additional sanctions for this behavior. (Doc. 

No. 31-1 at 22-26.) As to what, if any, monetary sanction should be levied against Plaintiff 

for his failure to comply with her order, Judge Stormes is in a far better position to 

determine whether such a sanction is warranted, having controlled discovery in this case 

since its inception. Accordingly, the court refers the request for monetary sanctions under 

Rule 37 (b)(2)(C). Similarly, because the alleged trespass is, in essence, a discovery 

dispute, the court also refers this issue and any potential sanctions stemming from it to 

Judge Stormes for determination. 

Case 3:18-cv-02330-JM-NLS Document 58 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

18cv2330 JM(NLS) 

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

weighs: (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 defendant; (4) the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. 

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

 The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation is not a factor that weighs 

in Defendant’s favor. The parties’ seeming inability to work cooperatively in bringing this 

case to trial or settlement is evidenced by the recent flurry of motion practice in this case. 

Since this motion has been filed Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Evidentiary and Monetary 

Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence (Doc. No. 34), a Motion for Extension of Time to File 

an Opposition to the Current Motion (Doc. No. 40), a Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 

No. 41) and a Motion for Relief from Court Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P 60(B); Motion 

for Sanctions (Doc. No. 42), and Defendant has filed three motions to stay related to 

Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify, spoliation of evidence and its own motion to dismiss (Doc. 

Nos. 45, 46, 47.) But the responsibility for this cannot be laid entirely at Plaintiff’s door. 

 None of the remaining factors weigh in Defendant’s favor either. The delay in 

producing the documents is not so prejudicial to CoreCivics that it cannot be remedied by, 

for example, extending the discovery cut-off date. Furthermore, by its own admission, 

GEO Group has produced countless records related to Mr. Glover, including those under 

his aliases. Notably, absent from Defendant’s motion is any mention of the fact that the 

video of the alleged fall has been destroyed. 

 Finally, Defendant argues that the imposition of lesser sanctions is not feasible 

because Plaintiff has not produced or disclosed the information sought because it is 

unfavorable to him and that prohibiting him for producing evidence of injury would nullify 

his claim. But Defendant’s all or nothing approach is extreme and ignores other less drastic 

measures such as monetary sanctions, evidence and issue preclusion, or tailored jury 

Case 3:18-cv-02330-JM-NLS Document 58 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

18cv2330 JM(NLS) 

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

instructions.2

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A)-(B). But Mr. Kaufman is in 

violation of Judge Stormes’ order, and the court has given him “crystal clear” warning of 

the significant consequences available to the court for any continuing failures. Henderson, 

779 F.2d at 1424. At bottom, however, the record here does not reveal a long history of 

inexcusable delay and neglect on the part of plaintiff’s counsel and, as far as this court is 

aware, Mr. Kaufman has not violated any other discovery orders. 

 While the court is not condoning Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Judge Stormes’ 

order, dismissal of this case is not warranted under either Rule 37 or Rule 41. Accordingly, 

the court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. No. 31). 

The parties are reminded that the basic standards of professionalism are expected of all 

attorneys appearing before this court. See CivLR 83.4(a)(1)(a)-(b), (2)(a)-(b). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2020 

2 Commendably, at the hearing set for argument, defense counsel acknowledged that the 

unfortunate deterioration of professional civility resulting from the blizzard of discovery 

motions may have played some part in filing the motion to dismiss.

Case 3:18-cv-02330-JM-NLS Document 58 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4