The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 32)
Plaintiff Donald J. Ackley ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 5, 2010, Defendants filed a motion requesting sanctions against Plaintiff for his failure to obey a court order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. (Doc. #32.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' motion on April 22, 2010. (Doc. #35.) Defendants filed a reply on April 23, 2010. (Doc. #36.)
Defendants request sanctions for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. Defendants claim that they propounded five (5) discovery requests on Plaintiff on October 14, 2009: one set of document production requests, and four sets of interrogatories from Defendants Blevin, Carroll, Uribe, and Wright. Plaintiff's responses to these requests were due forty-five (45) days after they were served.
On January 8, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to compel stating that they had yet to receive any responses from Plaintiff. (Doc. #27.) The Court granted Defendants' motion to compel on February 9, 2010. (Doc. #29.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests within twenty (20) days.
On February 24, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time. (Doc. #30.) In their motion, Defendants' counsel submitted a declaration that stated:
On January 11, 2010, my office received a stack of documents from Plaintiff in the following order: "Plaintiff's Objections to Interrogatories from Defendants Carroll, Blevin, Uribe and Wright;" [and] "Plaintiff's Responses to Interrogatories, Set One."
(Defs.' Mot. for Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Responses; Decl. of Defense Counsel 2:8-14, ECF No. 30.)
On April 15, 2010, Defendants filed the present motion for sanctions. Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's February 9, 2010 order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. (Defs.' Notice of Mot. and Mot. for Terminating Sanctions or, in the Alternative, Mot. for Evidentiary Sanctions; Mem. of P. & A. 3:6-13, ECF No. 32.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff refused to respond to Blevin, Carroll, Uribe, and Wright's interrogatories. (Mot. for Terminating Sanctions 3:6-13, ECF No. 32.) Defendants further contend that Plaintiff continued to refuse to participate in the discovery process after the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond. (Mot. for Terminating Sanctions 3:6-13, ECF No. 32.) Defendants later state that "[o]n January 11, 2010, Plaintiff served a single discovery response in response to Defendant Carroll's request for responses to interrogatories."*fn1 (Mot. for Terminating Sanctions 4:6-8, ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff responded to each interrogatory with: "Objection. The command, listed as Interrogatory No. , does not ask a question." (Mot. for Terminating Sanctions 4:9-10, ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff did not provide any substantive responses to any of the interrogatories.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants' motion is moot because Plaintiff provided sufficient responses to Defendants' interrogatories on February 27, 2010. Plaintiff explains that Defendants' failure to receive his responses was through no fault of his own because "Plaintiff can only give his mail to the prison guards, he has no control over the promptness of the prison's outgoing mail systems." (Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s[sic] Mot. for Terminating or Evidentiary Sanctions 2, ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff attached the "'original' proof of service" for his mailing to his opposition. Notably, Plaintiff has not attached the actual responses to the discovery requests to his opposition.*fn2
Defendants argue in reply that Plaintiff's claim that he served discovery responses on February 27, 2010 is not supported by any independent evidence. (Defs.' Reply in Support of Mot. for Terminating Sanctions or, in the Alternative, Mot. for Evidentiary Sanctions 2:25-26, ECF No. 36.) Defendants further state that "[t]o this date, Defendants have not received the discovery responses that Plaintiff claims to have mailed on February 27, 2010." (Defs.' Reply 2:26-27, ECF No. 36.) However, it appears that Defendants have received substantive discovery responses from Plaintiff. Earlier in their reply, Defendants stated:
While Plaintiff simultaneously served substantive discovery responses to Defendants' discovery requests, Defendants have not yet had an opportunity to review those responses to ensure the absence of objections and otherwise determine their adequacy.*fn3
(Defs.' Reply 2:21-23, ECF No. 36.) Defendants later state that they "are only now receiving Plaintiff's responses." (Defs.' Reply 3:2-3, ECF No. 36.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff should be sanctioned for ...