Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00271-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON DAVIS, 1:05cv0271 LJO DLB

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

RESPONSES AND FOR SANCTIONS

vs.

(Document 48)

FOSTER FARMS DAIRY, et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

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

employment discrimination action. On February 22, 2007, defendant Foster Dairy Farms

(“defendant”), filed a motion to compel responses to requests for documents and interrogatories. 

Defendant also seeks sanctions. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 5, 2007 and defendant filed a

reply on March 12, 2007. A hearing was held before the undersigned on March 16, 2007. Plaintiff

appeared pro se and Paul Bauer appeared on behalf of defendant. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was one of three plaintiffs who brought an action against Defendants Foster Farms

Dairy, Ron Foster, and Dennis Bettencourt (“Defendants”) in 1:04cv6634 LJO 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

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 03/21/07 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

2

commenced this action. Defendants filed their answer on April 17, 2005.

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

Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court to file the SAC, Defendants did not object and filed their

answer on November 13, 2006. 

Plaintiff’s SAC names Ron Foster, Dennis Bettencourt and Foster Farms Dairy, Inc. as

Defendants. The SAC alleges 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. He alleges causes of action for (1)

employment/racial discrimination; (2) “director and supervisor liability”; (3) intentional infliction of

emotional distress; (4) injunctive relief; (5) wrongful termination in violation of the Federal False

Claims Act; (6) wrongful termination in violation of the State False Claims Act; and (7) wrongful

termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff prays for compensatory, general and punitive

damages, as well as injunctive relief.

On February 27, 2007, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. 

On February 22, 2007, defendants filed the instant motion to compel responses to requests for

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

Accordingly to defendants, the parties agreed to an extension of time for plaintiff to respond

to the request for documents, making them due January 10, 2007. Defendants sent plaintiff three

meet and confer letters. As of the filing of this motion, no responses or documents have been

received.

Defendants state that on January 20, 2007, plaintiff served objections to the interrogatories

based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49 (which deals with federal jury verdict interrogatories). 

Defendants’ counsel called and explained why the objection was invalid and plaintiff agreed to serve

his responses but hasn’t done so. 

The failure to receive the discovery responses required defendants to take plaintiff’s

deposition set for February 14, 2007 off calendar. Defendants request sanctions in the amount of

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 03/21/07 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

3

$2,640.00. 

Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 5, 2007. He states that he mailed documents and

discovery responses to defendants’ counsel’s office at “30 River Park Place West, Suite 420, Fresno,

California 93720” before this motion was filed. He also states that he attempted to meet with

attorney Michael Hogan at his office but was told he was not in. Plaintiff offers to bring copies to

the hearing. 

Defendants filed a reply on March 12, 2007 questioning plaintiff’s representation that he

mailed responses since he did not attach copies to his opposition. Defendants also question

plaintiff’s representation that he attempted meet with Michael Hogan because the only attorneys that

have ever communicated with plaintiff are Paul Bauer and Angela Healy. Further, the receptionist

and legal secretary at counsel’s office deny that plaintiff ever came to the office asking to meet with

Mr. Hogan.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, a party may propound to another party,

written interrogatories relating to anything within the permissible scope of discovery. The other

party must then respond in writing and under oath within 30 days, unless a shorter or longer time is

set by court order or by written stipulation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3). Similarly, pursuant to Rule 34, a

party may serve on any other party a request to produce and permit inspection, copying, etc., of

relevant documents and tangible things. The response to a request under Rule 34 is also due in 30

days, absent a court order or stimulation. If the responding party fails to provide responses to the

requested discovery, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses pursuant to

Rule 37(a). The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses,

including reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or

opposing the motion. Fed.R. Civ.P. 37(a)(4). The burden is on the losing party to demonstrate that

its position was substantially justified. Id.

Without substantial justification, plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery properly served

by defendant. Plaintiff offers no plausible excuse, other than a misunderstanding of the law, for his

failure to comply with the rules of discovery. Despite plaintiff’s pro se status, he is still expected to

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 03/21/07 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

4

comply with the rules and orders of this court. 

Defendant’s motion is therefore GRANTED. On or before March 19, 2007, plaintiff shall

serve responses to defendant’s first set of interrogatories as well as a written response to defendant’s

request for production of documents. On or before March 23, 2007, plaintiff shall organize his

responsive documents and provide copies of the documents to defendant’s counsel. The documents

shall be organized so that counsel can determine what documents are responsive to each request. 

Plaintiff shall bear the cost of copying his documents for defendant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

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

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00271-LJO -DLB Document 55 Filed 03/21/07 Page 4 of 4