Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00271-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Bettencourt
Defendant
Aaron Davis
Plaintiff
Ron Foster
Defendant
Foster Farms Dairy
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

AARON DAVIS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

FOSTER FARMS DAIRY, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv0271 LJO DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(Document 60)

Plaintiff Aaron Davis (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this Title

VII employment discrimination action. On April 23, 2007, Defendants Foster Farms Dairy, Ron

Foster, and Dennis Bettencourt (“Defendants”) filed a motion for terminating sanctions. The

matter was heard on May 11, 2007, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States

Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff appeared in pro se. Paul Bauer appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

The Court now submits these Findings and Recommendation to the District Court. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was one of three plaintiffs who brought an action against Defendants in Case

Number 1:04cv6634 REC DLB. On February 24, 2005, Plaintiff’s claims were severed and he

was directed to file an amended complaint in a separate civil action. Plaintiff filed his amended

complaint on June 15, 2005, and thereby commenced this action. Defendants filed their answer

on April 17, 2005.

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 64 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 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

2

On October 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging

employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. He alleges that he was terminated in

February 2005, after he was subpoenaed for a deposition regarding a “Foster Farms which

involved discriminatory action(s) against African Americans and where plaintiff was under oath

and disclosed the discriminatory action(s) of Foster Farms and 28 other related issues that Foster

Farms did not want disclosed.” SAC, at 3.

Although Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court to file the SAC, Defendants did not object

and filed their answer on November 13, 2006. Also on November 13, 2006, Plaintiff attempted

to file a Third Amended Complaint, but pursuant to Defendants’ motion, it was stricken on

January 10, 2007.

On January 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the SAC. The Court denied the

motion on February 27, 2007, finding his request futile and unnecessary.

On February 22, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to compel responses to requests for

production of documents and interrogatories served on December 4, 2006, and December 21,

2006. The Court granted the motion at the hearing on March 16, 2007, and by written order on

March 21, 2007. Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff was to serve responses to Defendants’ first set of

interrogatories and requests for documents on or before March 19, 2007. Plaintiff was further

ordered to organize his responsive documents and provide copies to Defendants’ counsel on or

before March 23, 2007. The Court ordered Plaintiff to bear the costs of copying his documents. 

Defendants filed the instant motion for Rule 37 sanctions on April 5, 2007. Defendants

request terminating sanctions as well as $2,880 in attorneys fees. On May 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed

an untimely opposition in which he requests that the case be stayed so that he can find an

attorney.

RELEVANT DISCOVERY HISTORY

Pursuant to the Court’s order, Plaintiff personally served responses to Defendants’ first

set of interrogatories on or before March 19, 2007. However, the responses to the

interrogatories, which seek basic information about Plaintiff’s claims, consisted mainly of one of

the two following statements: “By law there is a mathematical formula that exists for every

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 64 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 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

3

wrong” and “Discovery is continuing. Provided in part during initial disclosures and provide

[sic] in part during production of documents.” Exhibit B, attached to Declaration of Paul J.

Bauer (“Bauer Dec.”). Moreover, Defendants state that Plaintiff has failed to produce many of

the documents he claims supports his allegations, or identify which document goes with which

request. The documents that Plaintiff has produced do not contain critical details, such as the

author and date, and Defendants believe that this information has been intentionally torn or

ripped away. Exhibit C, attached to Bauer Dec. 

Defendants’ counsel wrote a letter to Plaintiff on March 26, 2007, in an attempt to meet

and confer. Defendants also contacted Plaintiff by telephone on April 2, 2007. Plaintiff has not

responded. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) provides an array of sanctions available to the

Court when a party fails to comply with a discovery order. Rule 37(b)(2)(C) permits the Court to

issue 

An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings

until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part

thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party;

“Dismissal, however, is authorized only in ‘extreme circumstances’ and only where the

violation is ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.’” In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d

429, 432 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). In determining whether to impose the sanction of

dismissal, the Court must consider the following five factors: (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;

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Id.

In support of their motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s actions are bad faith

litigation tactics designed to delay the proceedings and prevent Defendants from evaluating his

claims. The Court agrees. Plaintiff has been given the benefit of the doubt many times during

the course of this litigation. In the Court’s March 21, 2007, order granting Defendants’ motion to

compel, the Court gave him explicit instructions regarding his compliance, yet he made no good

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 64 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 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

4

faith effort to comply. The responses that he served are far from sufficient, and consist of little

more than repetitive, elusive and unresponsive statements. Given the history of his discovery

abuses during this litigation, the Court can only conclude that his actions are taken in bad faith.

As a result of Plaintiff’s refusal to cooperate, Defendants have been left with little to no

information relating to Plaintiff’s claims. This case has been pending for over two years and

because of Plaintiff’s tactics, Defendants have been unable to obtain even basic discovery. In

fact, Defendants have not received sufficient discovery to allow them to take Plaintiff’s

deposition. Plaintiff brought this action in February 2005, and continues to delay and deceive the

parties and this Court. Defendants should not be forced to continue to defend an action in which

Plaintiff refuses to cooperate, nor should this Court expend anymore of its limited resources. 

In Plaintiff’s untimely opposition, he requests that this action be stayed so that he can

retain an attorney. Plaintiff has told this Court numerous times that he was about to retain

counsel, but, not surprisingly, has yet to do so. His request to stay is therefore nothing more than

another tactic to delay this action.

Defendants also request an award of $2,880 as sanctions for the cost of filing and hearing

this motion. However, because the Court recommends sanctions in the form of dismissal and

because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the Court recommends that this

request be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, based on the above, the Court recommends that Defendants’ motion for

terminating sanctions be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED. The Court further

recommends that Defendants’ request for sanctions in the amount of $2,880 be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J.

O’Neill pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after

being served with these Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

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

the specified 

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 64 Filed 05/16/07 Page 4 of 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

5

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 15, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 64 Filed 05/16/07 Page 5 of 5