The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF CORRAL RODRIGUEZ'S MOTION FOR ISSUE AND EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
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.)
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).
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;
(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 ...