Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00320/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00320-19/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES R. BRISCOE, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARGARET MIMS, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-320-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR

AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 85)

Plaintiff James R. Briscoe (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

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

is Defendants’ May 26, 2010 Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Award of

Monetary Sanctions [ECF No. 85] asking the Court to order Plaintiff to respond fully and

completely to previously served interrogatories and requests for production and to award

sanctions for the filing of the instant motion. 

On June 17, 2010, Defendants withdrew the Motion to Compel because Plaintiff

provided the requested discovery to Defendants at Plaintiff’s deposition. (Decl. of James

Arendt (ECF No. 87) ¶ 3.) Accordingly, the Court will not address the merits of the Motion

to Compel. 

Defendants did not withdraw their request for monetary sanctions. Defendants

argue that Plaintiff ignored their discovery requests without good cause or justification and

necessitated the filing of the Motion to Compel. Defendants ask that the Court order

Plaintiff to pay their fees associated with filing the Motion to Compel. Specifically,

Case 1:07-cv-00320-AWI -MJS Document 88 Filed 07/16/10 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-

Defendants seek an award of $525.00. (ECF No. 85-1, p. 4.) 

Rule 37 provides, in pertinent part, that the Court “must, after giving an opportunity

to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion [to compel] . .

. to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including

attorney’s fees” unless “other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R.

Civ. Proc. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii). 

In this case, at the time the interrogatories and requests for production were served,

Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. Plaintiff’s attorney withdrew in the middle of

discovery leaving Plaintiff, who presumably has no legal education, to wade through the

discovery on his own. It also appears that Plaintiff was arrested and re-incarcerated at

some point during the discovery process. (ECF No. 81.) Ultimately, Plaintiff produced the

requested documents and information at his deposition. Under these circumstances, the

Court finds that an award of monetary sanctions would be unjust. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Award of

Monetary Sanctions [ECF No. 85] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00320-AWI -MJS Document 88 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2