Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00856/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00856-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

LUCIO CORRAL RODRIGUEZ, )

individually and as Successor in Interest to )

the decedents, MARICRUZ CORRAL, )

IVAN ALEXANDER CORRAL, and )

LUCIO ANTHONY CORRAL, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF )

MODESTO; CITY OF RIVERBANK; )

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AMTRAK )

CALIFORNIA; BURLINGTON )

NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY; and )

DOES 1 to 200, )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:08-cv-00856 OWW GSA

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF LUCIO

CORRAL RODRIGUEZ’S MOTION FOR

ISSUE AND EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS

AGAINST THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

(Document 129)

On May 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions Against the

County of Stanislaus for its failure to produce traffic counts concerning Claribel Road, the area of

the accident giving rise to this litigation. (Doc. 129.) On May 28, 2010, the County of Stanislaus

filed its opposition to the motion. (Docs. 134-135.) Thereafter, on June 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed

his reply to the opposition. (Doc. 139.)

1

Case 1:08-cv-00856-LJO -GSA Document 143 Filed 06/15/10 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

27

28

On June 9, 2010, this Court determined the motion was suitable for decision without oral

argument; therefore, the June 11, 2010, hearing was taken off calendar and the matter was taken

under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves this Court for an order imposing issue and evidentiary sanctions against

Defendant County of Stanislaus for its failure to produce traffic counts as ordered by the Court. 

More specifically, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter an order finding that: (1) Defendant County of

Stanislaus had no basis or justification to install the stop sign in the eastbound lane of Claribel

Road; (2) the installation of the stop sign was not reasonable given the circumstances existing at

the time of the installation; (3) the installation of the stop sign was not reasonable given the

circumstances existing at the time of the accident; and (4) Defendant County of Stanislaus be

prohibited from introducing any evidence to the contrary at trial. (Doc. 129 at 1-9.)

Defendant County of Stanislaus opposes the motion, essentially arguing that Plaintiff’s

motion seeking the order compelling production was improper, that it eventually produced the

materials as ordered, that somehow Plaintiff has attempted to “bypass[] the discovery process,” 

and that the sanction sought by Plaintiff is drastic. (Doc. 134 at 1-3.)

In reply to the opposition, Plaintiff contends that (1) the documents have not been

produced, (2) Plaintiff properly sought the discovery through various discovery requests, (3) the

Court’s discovery order is proper, and (4) Plaintiff will be prejudiced in the absence of this

remedy. (Doc. 139 at 1-5.) 

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Plaintiff seeks issue and evidentiary sanctions as provided for in Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party’s officer,

director, or managing agent - or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or

31(a)(4) - fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order

under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue

further just orders. They may include the following:

(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated

facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the

prevailing party claims;

2

Case 1:08-cv-00856-LJO -GSA Document 143 Filed 06/15/10 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

27

28

(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing

designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated

matters in evidence . . ..

There is no requirement that the failure to respond to an order compelling discovery be

willful before sanctions may be imposed. Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420, 1426 (9th Cir.

1985). Sanctions are appropriate where a party or someone under the party’s control is guilty of

failing to produce documents or things as ordered by the court. Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.3d

652, 657 (9th Cir. 1990). The court may order the matters at issue or other designated facts to be

“established” for purposes of the action. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des

Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 695, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 2100 (1982). The court may also order

that the disobedient party be precluded from supporting or opposing designated claims or

defenses, or from introducing designated matters into evidence. Von Brimer v. Whirlpool Corp.,

536 F.2d 838, 844 (9th Cir. 1976).

Prior Court Order

The aforementioned sanctions may not be imposed in the absence of a prior court order

compelling discovery. Unigard Security Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng. & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363,

367 (9th Cir. 1992). On April 20, 2010, this Court ordered Defendant County of Stanislaus “to

produce any documentation concerning any traffic counts relating to the subject intersection,

occurring prior to the date of the subject accident, if such documents exist,” no later than April

30, 2010. (Doc. 112 at 2.) 

Issue & Evidentiary Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks the following issue and evidentiary sanctions finding that:

1. Defendant County of Stanislaus had no basis or justification to install the stop

sign in the eastbound lane of Claribel Road;

2. The installation of the stop sign in the eastbound lane of Claribel Road was not

reasonable given the circumstances existing at the time of the installation;

3. The installation of the stop sign in the eastbound lane of Claribel Road was not

reasonable given the circumstances existing at the time of the accident.

4. Defendant County of Stanislaus be prohibited from introducing any evidence to

the contrary.

(Doc. 129 at 2, 9.) This Court is not inclined to enter such an order at this time. However, the

Court is concerned that the County of Stanislaus has abused the discovery process. Despite

3

Case 1:08-cv-00856-LJO -GSA Document 143 Filed 06/15/10 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

27

28

requests for production by Plaintiff, clearly pertaining to the materials Plaintiff now seeks,

Defendant County of Stanislaus has failed to produce all documents responsive to the request. 

(Doc. 129, Ex. 12.) 

This Court will afford Defendant County of Stanislaus a final opportunity to produce any

and all documents relative to Plaintiff’s numerous requests. In the future, should this Order not

resolve the issue, Defendant is advised the Court will be inclined to use its broad sanctioning

power. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). 

ORDER

In light of the foregoing, this Court orders that Defendant County of Stanislaus SHALL

produce any and all traffic studies, in complete form, relating to the intersection of Claribel Road

and Terminal Avenue, including, but not limited to, those documents specifically referenced in

other discovery produced by the County and/or referred to in the deposition of William Cardoza,

e.g., the traffic count from April 2006, traffic studies conducted every three or four years dating

back to the 1990s, and the traffic studies referred to in the resolution dated January 17, 1978. 

Defendant County of Stanislaus SHALL produce the documents within five (5) days of the

date of this order. Finally, this Court orders that Defendant County of Stanislaus SHALL pay

Plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney’s fees associated with the instant motion. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(d)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 14, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:08-cv-00856-LJO -GSA Document 143 Filed 06/15/10 Page 4 of 4