Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00547/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00547-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESMOND LOEB,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0547 EJG GGH P

vs.

A. COLON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s July 1, 2005, motion for sanctions. Plaintiff

alleges that on April 15, 2005, he served defendants with discovery requests to which they failed

to respond. On July 20, 2005, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Defendants

state that on June 30, 2005, defense counsel received a letter from plaintiff stating that he had

propounded discovery requests but had received no responses. A review of the documents

logged into defense counsel’s office showed a request for production of documents was received

from plaintiff on April 16, 2005.

Defense counsel then tried to locate plaintiff’s April 16, 2005, discovery requests,

but they could not be found. On July 5, 2005, defense counsel wrote to plaintiff and advised him

that the requests had been misplaced, but told him that if he re-served his requests they would be

answered in a timely manner even if the discovery deadline had passed. Defense counsel

Case 2:04-cv-00547-JAM-GGH Document 26 Filed 08/09/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

received plaintiff’s discovery requests on July 19, 2005.

There is no evidence indicating that defense counsel acted in bad faith or without

substantial justification. In addition, plaintiff’s discovery requests are in the process of being

responded to. Under these circumstances, sanctions are not warranted. However, defendant

must act expeditiously in making good faith responses.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 1, 2005, motion for

sanctions is denied.

DATED: 8/8/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

loeb547.san

Case 2:04-cv-00547-JAM-GGH Document 26 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 2