Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00589/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00589-15/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOB BEJARANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLISON, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00589 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND 

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(Document 97)

Plaintiff Bob Bejarano (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court vacated the 

judgment on August 28, 2015, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision.

The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 29, 2015. Pursuant to the 

order, initial disclosures were to be served by November 13, 2015.

On December 16, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on 

exhaustion. The Court granted Defendants’ request to stay merits-based discovery on December 17, 

2015.

On January 5, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to serve his initial 

disclosures. Plaintiff opposed the motion on January 21, 2016, and indicated that he served his 

initial disclosures on or about January 18, 2016. Defendants did not file a reply.

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 103 Filed 02/09/16 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

27

28

2

DISCUSSION

It appears that Plaintiff has served Defendants with his initial disclosures, albeit two months 

late. Defendants have not filed a reply and therefore have not informed the Court of any remaining 

issue.

The Court therefore DENIES Defendants’ motion to compel. The Court also DENIES 

Defendants’ request for sanctions in the amount of $680. There is no indication that Plaintiff acted 

in bad faith when he missed the deadline, and he explains that the oversight was unintentional and 

based in part on an “overload of work.” ECF No. 101, at 3. Moreover, as merits-based discovery 

has been stayed pending the outcome of Defendants’ motion, Defendants have not been prejudiced 

by any delay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 103 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 2