Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00634/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00634-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria Carrillo
Plaintiff
City Of Fresno
Defendant
David Coan
Defendant
Jerry Dyer
Defendant

Document Text:

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

MARIA CARRILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, FRESNO CITY

POLICE CHIEF JERRY DYER,

FRESNO CITY POLICE OFFICER

DAVID COAN, and DOES 1 through

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

1:06-CV-00634 OWW LJO

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS PURSUANT TO F. R. Civ.

P 37(b)(2)(C)

1. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as a sanction under F. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(C). Defendants removed this action from The Superior

Court for the State of California in the County of Fresno. 

Defendants argue that they have made repeated attempts to

cooperate with Plaintiff’s counsel on discovery. One order has

been issued mandating Plaintiff’s counsel to comply with

Defendants’ discovery requests. Plaintiff’s counsel has either

failed to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests or has

delayed his discovery responses. Defendants seek the dismissal

of this action as a sanction for opposing counsel’s lack of

response. 

//

Case 1:06-cv-00634-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 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

2

2. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed her initial complaint in Superior Court for

the State of California in the County of Fresno on April 24,

2006. (Doc. 2, Notice of Removal, Ex. 1, Filed May 22, 2006.) 

Defendants removed Plaintiff’s complaint to federal district

court on May 22, 2006. (Doc. 2, Notice of Removal.) On January

2, 2007 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to serve

initial disclosures and failure to respond to production of

documents. (Doc. 16, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply

with Court Orders.) On March 2, 2007 Defendants filed a reply

and statement of non opposition to their Motion to Dismiss. 

(Doc. 19, Reply and Statement of Non Opposition.) On March 5,

2007 Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to

dismiss. (Doc. 20, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.) 

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This motion arises from failure to respond by Plaintiff’s

counsel to Defense counsel’s correspondence and to court orders

mandating discovery. On June 13, 2006, Defense counsel sent a

letter to Plaintiff’s counsel seeking cooperation to prepare the

Joint Scheduling Report and regarding Rule 26 obligations. (Doc.

16, Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel failed to

respond to this letter. On July 17, 2006 Defense counsel sent

another letter to Plaintiff’s counsel seeking cooperation with

Rule 26 obligations. (Doc. 16, Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 2.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel again failed to respond. On August 11, 2006

Defendants sent Plaintiff’s counsel initial Rule 26 disclosures

and propounded interrogatories, request for admissions, and

document production requests. Plaintiffs counsel failed to

Case 1:06-cv-00634-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 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

3

respond to the disclosures and discovery requests. On September

14, 2006, with the rapidly approaching Scheduling Conference set

for October 4, 2006, Defense counsel sent another letter to

Plaintiff’s counsel seeking cooperation with preparation of the

Joint Report, Rule 26 disclosures, and the late discovery

responses. (Doc. 16, Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 3.) On September

16, 2006 Plaintiff’s counsel sent belated interrogatory

responses, but no responses to the document requests, no

responses for requests for admissions, or for time extension for

remaining discovery. 

On October 4, 2006 Plaintiff’s counsel made an appearance at

the Scheduling Conference explaining that his lack of response

was due to his being in trial. Plaintiff was ordered to provide

initial Rule 26 disclosures no later than October 13, 2006. 

Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide the disclosures by that date. 

On November 13, 2006, not having received the Rule 26

disclosures, Defendants filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 12,

Motion to Compel.) Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to

Defendants’ motion to compel. On December 13, 2006 an order

issued mandating that Plaintiff provide initial Rule 26

disclosures and outstanding Rule 34 production no later than 10

days from date of the Order and imposed a sanction for $740.00. 

(Doc. 15, Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel.) Plaintiff’s

counsel did not meet the deadline of this Court’s order. 

It was not until after Defendants filed this motion to

dismiss the case that Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendants a check

for $740.00 on February 14, 2007 as well as incomplete and

belated document production responses. Defendants sent another

Case 1:06-cv-00634-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 06/27/07 Page 3 of 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

4

letter to Plaintiff’s counsel on February 15, 2007 offering to

withdraw this motion if Plaintiff’s counsel complied with the

Court’s order requiring compliance with Rule 26, if Plaintiff

amended the Rule 34 production responses, and Plaintiff paid an

additional $750.00 in sanctions for the cost of Defendants having

to bring the current motion. Defendants gave Plaintiff’s counsel

a deadline of March 1, 2007 to comply. As of March 1, 2007

Defendants did not receive the requested responses. However,

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a FAX claiming that compliance was

forthcoming. 

4. LEGAL STANDARD

The issuance of sanctions for noncompliance with discovery

rules is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Rule

37(b)(2)(C) provides:

If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent

of a party... fails to obey an order to provide or

permit discovery, including an order made under

subdivision (a) of this rule or Rule 35, or if a party

fails to obey an order entered under Rule 26(f), the

court in which the action is pending may make such

orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among

others the following: 

(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts 

thereof, or rendering a judgment by default 

against the disobedient party. 

Before Rule 37 sanctions may be imposed, a party ordinarily

must disobey a court order regarding discovery. Unigard Security

Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng. & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th

Cir. 1992). Dismissal is authorized only in “extreme

circumstances.” United States v. Kahaluu Const. Co., 857 F.2d

600, 603 (9th Cir. 1988.) Moreover, in order to warrant

imposition of these severe sanctions, the violations must be due

Case 1:06-cv-00634-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 06/27/07 Page 4 of 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

5

to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party. Id. The Court

is obligated to impose lesser sanctions than dismissal, if

feasible. 

5. DISCUSSION

“A district court must weigh five factors in determining

whether to dismiss a case as a punitive measure: 1. the public’s

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 2. the court’s

need to manage its docket; 3. the risk of prejudice to the

defendants; 4. the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; 5. and the availability of less drastic sanctions. 

Kahaluu Constr. Co., 857 F.2d at 603. 

Defendants argue that dismissal of the case is the only

remaining sanction, since they have extended Plaintiff’s counsel

every courtesy and opportunity to comply with discovery

obligations. Despite Defendants’ efforts and the Court’s

intervention ordering compliance and issuing monetary sanctions,

Plaintiff’s counsel still has failed to respond. However, while

the failure of Plaintiff’s counsel to comply is inexcusable,

Defendants have not shown this failure to be an “extreme

circumstance,” or based on willfulness, bad faith, prejudice, or

the fault of the party. 

Plaintiff has brought a case against Defendants under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of her constitutional rights

under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as several

state law claims. It is in the public interest to quickly and

efficiently adjudicate allegations of constitutional

deprivations. Defendants do not dispute this. Further, while

the court’s overburdened docket weighs in favor of dismissal,

Case 1:06-cv-00634-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 06/27/07 Page 5 of 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

6

Plaintiff’s counsel claims that there has been full compliance

with the Court’s discovery orders since the filing of this

action. 

Defendants argue that based on the history of Plaintiff’s

lack of compliance, they will suffer prejudice if the case is not

dismissed. Defendants argue that they have not been able to

prepare a meaningful defense and should not be required to incur

otherwise unnecessary costs seeking the Court’s intervention to

gain compliance of Plaintiff’s counsel. This prejudice may be

more properly addressed through the issuance of additional

monetary sanctions. Plaintiff bears no responsibility for her

counsel’s failure to comply with discovery rules. To dismiss

this case would, in the alternative, prejudice Plaintiff by

depriving her of her day in court. Public policy favors the

resolution of Plaintiff’s claim on the merits where there are

other available sanctions to ensure the compliance of Plaintiff’s

counsel. With the trial date approaching, Plaintiff would be

placed in jeopardy. 

The facts indicate that Plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly

ignored Defendants’ discovery requests, the orders of this court,

and has not communicated. Initially, Defendants sent three

letters to Plaintiff’s counsel seeking cooperation in discovery. 

All three letters were ignored, including an August 11, 2006

initial Rule 26 disclosure and request for discovery. Further,

Plaintiff’s counsel only partially responded to Defendants’

September 14, 2006 discovery requests by submitting late

interrogatory responses but no responses to requests for

admissions or for an extension on remaining discovery. 

Case 1:06-cv-00634-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 06/27/07 Page 6 of 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

7

Plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with the October 4, 2006

order to comply with discovery requests by October 13, 2006. 

Plaintiff’s counsel also failed to comply by the discovery

deadline imposed by the December 13, 2006 court order, discovery

to be submitted ten days after the date of the order. Based on

the repeated neglect of Plaintiff’s counsel to respond to

discovery, a sanction for reasonable attorney’s fees in the

amount of $745.00. 

6. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) is

DENIED. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions in the

amount of $745.00. Plaintiff is now expressly warned that any

further noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

or orders of this Court will result in dismissal of the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

dd0l0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00634-OWW -GSA Document 30 Filed 06/27/07 Page 7 of 7