Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01033/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01033-8/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Kenneth G. Johnson,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 01-1033 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

Cal A. Terhune, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoJuly 13, 1994, the court in part granted plaintiff’s motions

to compel discovery and ordered CDC defendants to respond further

to plaintiff’s requests for documents 9, 10 and 14 (set one) and

4 (set 2). Specifically, defendants were ordered to provide

plaintiff, within 30 days, high-quality copies of certain

photographs, “R&R” orders showing staffing requirements,

grievances and related documents, and documents showing

investigation of the events underlying the complaint. If the

documents did not exist or could not with due diligence be found, 

Case 2:01-cv-01033-FCD-EFB Document 235 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 4
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

defendants were ordered to so state, unequivocally.

Defendants sought reconsideration of this order, which the

district court denied November 16, 2005.

December 22, 2004, defendants filed and served supplemental

discovery responses. They produced some documents but did not

state unequivocally that none others existed or could, with

diligence, be found.

April 1, 2005, plaintiff moved for sanctions, explaining he

sent defense counsel a letter January 10, 2005, outlining

deficiencies in the supplemental responses, to which counsel had

not replied. Defendants did not oppose the motion.

June 8, 2005, the court directed plaintiff to file a motion

to compel discovery if he wished to challenge the sufficiency of

the supplemental responses and extended the deadline for

completing discovery and briefing on summary judgment for that

sole purpose. August 31, 2005, the court issued an order

clarifying that plaintiff could file and serve a motion to compel

further responses and setting a briefing schedule for opposition

and reply.

September 19, 2005, plaintiff moved to compel further

responses, incorporating by reference his April 1, 2005, motion

for sanctions. Defendants filed and served an untimely

opposition October 26, 2005. The opposition includes a

declaration that high-quality copies of photographs were made,

but not that they were sent to plaintiff. The opposition states

unequivocally that no further documents responsive to requests 

Case 2:01-cv-01033-FCD-EFB Document 235 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

10, 14 and 4 exist, or at least none could be found after

diligent search. The opposition says nothing of plaintiff’s

request for sanctions.

Defendants’ responses to requests for production 10, 14 and

4 are, at long last, satisfactory. The courtesy copy of their

opposition submitted to the court includes high-quality copies of

photographs, which the court will forward to plaintiff. Thus,

discovery finally is completed; no further discovery shall be

permitted (see scheduling orders in this case).

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part, as

explained in the preceding paragraph. Plaintiff’s request for

sanctions also is granted. This court must apportion expenseshifting sanctions “in a just manner,” taking into account the

extent to which defendants’ objections to discovery were

substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)( c); see also

Reygo Pac. Corp. v. Johnson Pump Co., 680 F.2d 647, 649 (9th Cir.

1982) (expenses ordinarily awarded unless court finds losing

party’s position was justified); 7 James Wm. Moore et al.,

Moore’s Federal Practice para. 37.23[1] (recognizing that courts

apply rebuttable presumption in favor of imposing expense

shifting sanctions on party against whom motion to compel is

resolved). Defendants offer nothing to rebut the presumption of

sanctions. Their position, which was to ignore plaintiff’s

January 10 letter and April 1 motion for sanctions and file an

untimely opposition, was not substantially justified; it

inconvenienced the court and delayed resolution of pending crossCase 2:01-cv-01033-FCD-EFB Document 235 Filed 12/28/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff may submit a declaration

of expenses within 15 days.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders:

1. Plaintiff’s September 19, 2005, motion to compel is

granted in part.

2. Plaintiff’s April 1, 2005, request for sanctions is

granted and he shall submit a declaration of expenses within 15

days.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff, along with

this order, the high-quality copies of photographs submitted as

Exhibit B to the courtesy copy of defendants’ October 26, 2005,

opposition to the motion to compel.

4. Plaintiff may supplement his opposition to summary

judgment within 15 days. If he does, defendants may supplement

their reply within 15 days thereafter. No extensions will be

granted in connection with this briefing absent a showing of

manifest injustice.

Dated: December 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:01-cv-01033-FCD-EFB Document 235 Filed 12/28/05 Page 4 of 4