Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00615-19/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

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

Plaintiff Rodney Jerome Womack is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for discovery sanctions, filed June 18, 2021.

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding against Defendants W. Gibbons, A. Gomez, E. Smith, and G. O’Brien 

for excessive force and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. 

On June 5, 2020, Defendants Gibbons and Gomez filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 

30.) 

On July 29, 2020, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 44.) 

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,

 Plaintiff,

v.

W. GIBBONS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00615-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 63)

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 77 Filed 09/02/21 Page 1 of 8
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

On August 10, 2020, Defendants Smith and O’Brien filed a timely answer to the complaint. 

(ECF No. 48.) 

On August 11, 2020, the Court issued an order extending the discovery and scheduling order to 

Defendants Smith and O’Brien. (ECF No. 49.)

On March 24, 2021, Defendants Gibbons and Gomez filed a motion to compel discovery 

responses. (ECF No. 55.)

On March 29, 2021, Defendants Smith and O’Brien filed a motion to compel discovery 

responses. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

On May 3, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel, and Plaintiff was directed 

to file responses to the outstanding requests for production of documents within thirty days. (ECF No. 

57.) 

On June 18, 2021, Defendants O’Brien and Smith filed the instant motion for discovery 

sanctions. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 7, 2021, and Defendants filed a reply on 

July 14, 2021. (ECF Nos. 67, 69.) 

On July 20, 2021, the Court ordered Defendants Gibbons and Gomez to provide a copy of any 

discovery documents received by Plaintiff, and continued Defendants O’Brien and Smith’s motion for 

discovery sanctions. (ECF No. 70.)

On July 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply, and a supplemental sur-reply on July 29, 2021. 

(ECF Nos. 71, 72.) 

On August 3, 2021, Defendants Gibbons and Gomez filed a response to the Court’s July 20, 

2021, indicating that they never received any discovery documents from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 73.)

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of that power 

they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing 

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1961) ).

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 77 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 8
3

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

A court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey 

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local 

Rule 110; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 

471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979) ) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Malone v. United States 

Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 134 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 

Moreover, the Federal Rules specifically contemplate dismissal as a potential sanction for a party's 

failure to comply with an order compelling discovery, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), but “[o]nly 

‘willfulness, bad faith, and fault’ justify terminating sanctions,” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New 

Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 

F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2003) ).

[The Ninth Circuit has] constructed a five-part test, with three subparts to the fifth part, to 

determine whether a case-dispositive sanction under Rule 37(b)(2) is just: “(1) the public's 

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its dockets; (3) 

the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” The sub-parts of the 

fifth factor are whether the court has considered lesser sanctions, whether it tried them, and 

whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of case-dispositive sanctions.

Id. (footnote citations omitted). “The most critical factor to be considered in case-dispositive sanctions 

is whether a party's discovery violations make it impossible for a court to be confident that the parties 

will ever have access to the true facts.” Id. (footnote citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

III.

DISCUSSION

Defendants O’Brien and Smith argue that this action should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 

repeated refusals to comply with the Court’s discovery orders, including the initial discovery and 

scheduling order, and the order compelling Plaintiff to serve and file responses to Defendants’ 

discovery requests. 

In his initial opposition, filed on July 7, 2021, Plaintiff contends that on or about June 23, 

2021, he served discovery documents on Defendants Gibbons and Gomez, and he requested that a 

copy of the documents be forwarded to Defendants O’Brien and Smith. (ECF No. 67.) Based on 

Plaintiff’s response, on July 20, 2021, the Court ordered Defendants Gibbons and Gomez to serve a 

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 77 Filed 09/02/21 Page 3 of 8
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

27

28

copy of the discovery documents on Defendants O’Brien and Gomez within twenty days. (ECF No. 

70.) However, on August 3, 2021, Defendants Gibbons and Gomez filed a response indicating that 

they never received any discovery documents from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 73.) 

Plaintiff contends that he forwarded Defendants Gibbons and Gomez the original and only 

copy of his discovery documents because it would have been extremely difficult to copy as he is 

housed in the administrative segregation house. (ECF No. 71 at 2.) Plaintiff further contends that he 

has been diligently attempting to obtain copies of additional medical documents to provide to 

Defendants and provides copies of Requests for Interviews. (ECF No. 71 at 3-4; ECF No. 72 at 2, 4-

5.) 

Before imposing terminating sanctions, due process requires that a Court find that a litigant's 

conduct was the result of “willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1167 

(9th Cir. 1994) (citing Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983)). To find that a 

litigant has acted with “willfulness, bad faith, or fault,” a court need only find that the failure to 

participate in discovery was “disobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant.” 

Fjelstad, 762 F.2d at 1341. The willfulness standard simply requires that the “punished conduct [is] 

within the litigant's control.” Id. On the other hand, if the failure to produce is the result of 

circumstances outside of the recalcitrant party's control or an inability to fulfill the party's litigation 

obligations, dismissal is not proper. United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd., 617 F.2d 

1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980).

Here, as stated above, Defendants served requests for production of documents on Plaintiff, 

and when he completely failed to serve any responses, Defendants moved to compel his responses. 

(ECF No. 55, 56.) On May 31, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel, and ordered 

Plaintiff to file responses to the requests for production of documents, without objection, within thirty 

days. (ECF No. 57.) After no response was received, Defendants O’Brien and Smith filed the instant 

motion for terminating sanctions, or alternatively, evidentiary sanctions because Plaintiff failed to 

comply with the Court’s order compelling his responses. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff filed a response to 

Defendants’ motion, but it is neither a substantive opposition to the motion, nor a response to 

Defendants’ request for production of documents. (ECF No. 67.) Rather, Plaintiff simply contends 

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 77 Filed 09/02/21 Page 4 of 8
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

that on or about June 23, 2021, he sent 900 pages of unspecified medical records to Defendants 

Gibbons and Gomez, and that he is in the process of obtaining additional medical and mental health 

records from his institution. (Id.) On July 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address 

indicating that he was transferred to a new institution, and he is attempting to obtain “discovery 

responses.” (ECF No. 68.) 

Defendants Gibbons and Gomez filed a response on August 3, 2021 indicating that they never 

received any discovery documents from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 73.) Thus, despite several warnings of 

the consequences, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders. That is, Plaintiff has not 

served and filed a response to Defendants’ request for production of documents in compliance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2). More specifically, Plaintiff has failed to produce documents 

relevant to his Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need; he has not produced documents to support his alleged damages; and most importantly,

he has not produced the signed witness statements that he identified at his deposition which he 

acknowledged were located in his cell. (Longyear Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, ECF No. 55; Goodwin Decl. ¶ 9, ECF 

No. 56.) Plaintiff’s response fails to address the specific set of documents requested by Defendants 

and ordered by the Court to be produced. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff’s response also fails to address the 

prejudice to Defendants based on his non-compliance with the discovery disclosures. Plaintiff's lack 

of compliance with his discovery obligations and lack of adequate response to Defendants’ claim that 

they have not received any discovery documents from him, support a finding that his actions were 

willful and intentional, and that he has acted in bad faith. Further, Plaintiff's contention that he is not 

able to make copies of documents because he is housed in the administrative segregation unit is 

conclusory in nature and does not support his non-compliance with the discovery obligations. 

The Court now turns to the five factors which it must consider when a party seeks terminating 

sanctions. The first two factors, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. Malone v. United States Postal 

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987). The third factor also weighs in favor of dismissal because 

Defendants have not received any discovery documents from Plaintiff, despite the prior discovery 

requests and the Court’s order directing Plaintiff to provide such documents. Although Plaintiff 

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 77 Filed 09/02/21 Page 5 of 8
6

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

contends that on or about June 23, 2021, he provided 900 pages of medical documents to Defendants 

Gibbons and Gomez, to date, they have not received such documents, and Plaintiff has not explained 

why Defendants did not receive the documents. In fact, Plaintiff provides no other information as to 

the service of the documents other than that he forwarded his original copy to Defendants on or about 

June 23, 2021. Thus, it is clear that the lack of disclosure of the discovery documents has lead to 

delay in this action which presumptively prejudices Defendants. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 

1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Unreasonable delay creates a presumption of injury to the defense.”). 

The risk of prejudice is obvious as Defendants have not had the benefit of Plaintiff’s discovery 

responses to evaluate a potential dispositive motion, resulting in Defendants having to separately move 

to modify the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 74.) Defendants have also had to incur expenses 

seeking the Court’s assistance to enforce its orders and Plaintiff’s discovery obligations. In addition, 

discovery is now closed. Although dismissal is disfavored under the fourth factor, because public

policy strongly favors disposition on the merits, in this case, Plaintiff’s own conduct has delayed a 

decision on the merits, and his willful defiance of the Court’s discovery orders necessitated a motion 

to compel, a motion to modify the scheduling order, and the instant motion for sanctions. Thus, the 

fourth factor—public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is not compelling when it is 

thwarted by Plaintiff's own actions.

As to the availability of lesser sanctions, the relevant questions are: “(1) Did the court 

explicitly discuss the feasibility of less drastic sanctions and explain why alternative sanctions would 

be inadequate? (2) Did the court implement alternative methods of sanctioning or curing the 

malfeasance before ordering dismissal? (3) Did the court warn the plaintiff of the possibility of 

dismissal before actually ordering dismissal?” Malone, 833 F.2d at 132. “The district court abuses its 

discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering the impact of the sanction and 

the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.” Id. at 131-32 (quoting United States v. Nat'l Med. Enters., Inc., 

792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 1986)). A “[w]arning that failure to obey a court order will result in 

dismissal can itself meet the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 

244 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001); Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 

913 F.2d 1406, 1413 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, the Court has repeatedly warned Plaintiff of the 

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 77 Filed 09/02/21 Page 6 of 8
7

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

consequences for the failure to comply with his discovery obligations and compliance with court 

orders. In the first informational order, Plaintiff was warned that he was required to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the failure to comply will be grounds for imposition of 

sanctions, including dismissal. (ECF No. 7.) After Defendants answered the complaint, the Court 

issued the discovery and scheduling order, which again warned Plaintiff that his failure to act in good 

faith in discovery “may result in the payment of expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

37(a)(5) or other appropriate sanctions authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local 

Rules.” (ECF No. 44.) These warnings suffice in demonstrating that lesser drastic sanctions are not 

feasible. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132 (warning a plaintiff that failure to obey a court order will result 

in dismissal can suffice to meet the “consideration of alternatives” requirement). Furthermore, 

monetary sanctions do not appear to be a sufficient deterrent as Plaintiff is proceeding in forma 

pauperis and to date has not paid any of the filing fee. Thus, imposing monetary sanctions would be 

meaningless. Moreover, giving Plaintiff yet another opportunity to comply with his discovery 

obligations appears futile as he has not addressed the fact that Defendants have not received any 

discovery documents. The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[a] district court need not exhaust every 

sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 

alternatives.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d at 1424. Accordingly, the Court finds that there are no 

other, lesser sanctions that would be satisfactory or effective. Therefore, the Court finds this factor 

favors terminating sanctions. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff acted willfully by failing to comply with the court's 

order and after the consideration of the five factors that support terminating sanctions, the Court finds 

that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as a discovery sanction should be granted. See In the 

Matter of Visioneering Const., 661 F.2d 119, 123 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Rule 37 provides for, inter alia, the 

entering of a judgment by default for the failure of a party to attend a properly noticed deposition or 

serve answers to interrogatories or respond to requests for inspection of documents.”); Hammond 

Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U.S. 322, 351 (1909) (dismissal does not offend due process, when, as 

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 77 Filed 09/02/21 Page 7 of 8
8

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

here, the dismissal (or default) is a sanction for “the suppression or failure to produce the proof 

ordered, when such proof concerned the rightful decision of the cause”). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action be granted; and

2. The instant action be dismissed as a discovery sanction. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-

39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2021 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00615-KES-SAB Document 77 Filed 09/02/21 Page 8 of 8