Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05878/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05878-34/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

JOHN E. JAMES, III., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04-5878 LJO DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL

FURTHER PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

(DOC 142, 148)

I. Background

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed against numerous correctional guards at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) for allegedly using

excessive force on July 16, 2003, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pending before the court

are two motions for sanctions filed by plaintiff on July 19, 2006 and August 8, 2006, both of which

address defendants’ production of documents pursuant to this Court’s Order of June 28, 2006,

granting in part, plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents. Defendants filed an

opposition to the motions on August 18, 2006 and plaintiff filed a reply on August 24, 2006. 

Case 1:04-cv-05878-LJO -DLB Document 189 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

On August 3, 2005, plaintiff served a request for production of documents to which

defendants responded on September 30, 2005, producing documents and objecting to certain

requests. On June 1, 2006, following plaintiff’s motion to compel production of additional

documents, the Court issued an order granting the motion in part and denying it in part. On June 28,

2006, the Court modified the time period for which defendants were to produce documents.

Defendants represent that on July 3, 2006, they served a supplemental response to plaintiff’s

request for production of documents and produced 42 pages of additional documents. After

obtaining an extension from the Court, on July 17, 2006, defendants served a second supplemental

response to plaintiff’s document request, producing an additional 166 documents. 

II. Discussion

In his motions for sanctions, plaintiff contends that defendants are withholding documents

ordered produced by the Court in granting his motion to compel in part. Specifically, plaintiff

contends that defendants have failed to produce a video tape of an interview conducted with plaintiff

on July 18, 2003 and documents evidencing the use of force.

Defendants represent that they have produced all documents in their possession, covered by

the Court’s orders and further that the video tape does not exist. Defendants also submit copies of

their three separate document productions.

The Court has broad powers to impose sanctions against a party for failing to comply with a

court order compelling discovery. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2). Sanctions are appropriate if a party or

someone under a party’s control is guilty of any misconduct in connection with court orders

regarding discovery, including failing to produce documents or things as ordered by the court or

otherwise disobeying a court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2). In such cases, the court shall make “such

orders as are just.” Id. 

Here, defendants represent that all documents responsive to the Court’s orders have been

produced and they are not withholding documents from plaintiff. It is not unusual in civil cases for

the parties to disagree about whether each side has produced all available information in response to

discovery. In such cases, and absent direct evidence to the contrary, the Court must take parties at

Case 1:04-cv-05878-LJO -DLB Document 189 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

their word when they represent that they have fully complied with a discovery request or order of the

court. This case is no exception. There is no basis for a finding that defendants have disobeyed or

otherwise failed to comply with this Court’s orders and therefore plaintiff’s motions for sanctions are

HEREBY DENIED.

Defendants are reminded, however, that they will be precluded from using at a trial, at a

hearing or in any motion, any information covered by this Court’s orders or defendants’ continuing

duty to supplement, which has not been produced to plaintiff. Furthermore, defendants will be

sanctioned should the Court determine that documents were withheld from plaintiff in violation of a

court order or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05878-LJO -DLB Document 189 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3