Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06619/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06619-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY MURO, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY )

JEFFREY SIMPSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:03-CV-6619-OWW-SMS

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DEFENDANTS’

PERSONNEL AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS

RECORDS (DOC. 55) AND TAKING

MOTION OFF CALENDAR WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

Vacated hearing date:

April 27, 2006

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO

PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSEL REGARDING

SANCTIONS FOLLOWING COURT’S

VACATING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

DEFENDANTS’ PERSONNEL AND

INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCUMENTS 

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302(c)(1) and 72-303.

On January 31, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel

production of Defendants’ personnel and internal affairs records.

The motion was taken off calendar without prejudice by the

Court’s order dated March 1, 2006, because Plaintiffs had failed

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 65 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 5
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

to meet and confer and to secure a stipulation regarding the

discovery dispute as required by Local Rule 37-251. Plaintiffs in

that instance neither contacted Defendants to discuss informal

resolution of the discovery dispute nor prepared a joint

statement regarding the discovery disagreement.

Plaintiffs refiled the motion a few days later. 

Motions to compel disclosures or responses to discovery must

include a certification that the movant has in good faith

conferred or attempted to confer with the person or

party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the

information or material without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(2)(A),(B).

Local Rule 37-251(a) and (e) provides that except where

there has been a complete and total failure to respond to a

discovery request or order, or when the only relief sought by the

motion is the imposition of sanctions, a hearing of a motion

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37, including any motion

to exceed discovery limitations or motion for protective order,

may be had by the filing of a notice of motion and motion

scheduling the hearing date on the appropriate calendar at least

twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing. However, the

hearing may be dropped from calendar without prejudice if

thereafter the joint statement re discovery disputes or an

affidavit as set forth in Rule 37-251(c) is not filed on or

before three (3) court days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

Rule 37-251(d) provides that if counsel for the moving party is

unable, after a good faith effort, to secure the cooperation of

counsel for the opposing party in arranging the required

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 65 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 5
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

conference, or in preparing and executing the required joint

statement, counsel for the moving party may file and serve an

affidavit so stating and containing other information directed to

be included by the rule. 

When PlaintiffS refiled the motion, Plaintiffs again

proceeded without a stipulation or an affidavit regarding a lack

of cooperation.

Because Plaintiffs have again failed to comply with Local

Rule 37-251, the hearing on the motion to compel IS VACATED, and

the motion IS TAKEN OFF CALENDAR WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to

being renoticed and refiled in a manner that complies with the

pertinent rules of court and local rules. 

Further, Plaintiffs and their counsel ARE SPECIFICALLY

DIRECTED not to refile the motion without complying with the

requirements of Local Rule 37-251 for meeting and conferring and

filing a stipulation or affidavit thereafter.

At this juncture, no request for sanctions is before the

Court. However, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel ARE INFORMED

that Local Rule 11-110 provides that a failure of counsel or of a

party to comply with the Local Rules or with any order of the

Court may be grounds of imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions authorized by statute, rule, or within the inherent

power of the Court. A court may impose monetary sanctions,

payable to the Court, in the nature of a fine pursuant to the

Court’s inherent powers where the Court finds that the offending

conduct was undertaken in bad faith. Zambrano v. City of Tustin,

885 F.2d 1473, 1478 (9th Cir. 1989). Monetary sanctions may be

imposed for violation of a local rule upon a finding of conduct

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 65 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 5
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

amounting to recklessness, gross negligence, or repeated

unintentional flouting of court rules. Id. at 1480. Sanctions

should not be imposed without giving counsel notice and an

opportunity to be heard. Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co.,

710 F.2d 516, 522-23 (9th Cir. 1983).

Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides:

Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct

cases in any court of the United States or Territory

thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any

case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required

by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs,

expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred

because of such conduct.

For action to be considered unreasonable and vexatious, it must

involve bad faith, improper motive, or reckless disregard of the

duty owed to the Court. Edwards v. General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d

242, 246 (5th Cir. 1998); New Alaska Development Corp. v.

Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1306 (9th Cir. 1989). The imposition of

sanctions under § 1927 requires a finding of bad faith; an

attorney’s bad faith is assessed under a subjective standard,

pursuant to which either knowing or reckless conduct is

sufficient. Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines,

210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000). An attorney subject to

sanctions pursuant to § 1927 is entitled to notice and an

opportunity to be heard by way of briefing, but no oral or

evidentiary hearing is required. Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v.

Carnival Air Lines, 210 F.3d at 1118.

Plaintiffs and their counsel ARE SPECIFICALLY INFORMED that

in view of Plaintiffs’ repeated failures to comply with the rules

of court with respect to filing a joint stipulation regarding a

discovery dispute, the Court could be warranted in finding that

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 65 Filed 04/27/06 Page 4 of 5
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

any similar failure to comply in the future reflects bad faith on

the part of counsel or Plaintiffs. Further, should Plaintiffs

again fail to comply with the pertinent rules, the Court will sua

sponte consider imposing sanctions on Plaintiffs and/or

Plaintiffs’ counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06619-OWW -SMS Document 65 Filed 04/27/06 Page 5 of 5