Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rodriguez v. County of Stanislaus

September 28, 2010

LUCIO CORRAL RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE DECEDENTS, MARICRUZ CORRAL, IVAN ALEXANDER CORRAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF MODESTO; CITY OF RIVERBANK; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AMTRAK CALIFORNIA; BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY; AND DOES 1 TO 200, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF LUCIO LUCIO ANTHONY CORRAL, CORRAL RODRIGUEZ'S MOTION FOR ISSUE AND EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

(Document 159)

On July 1, 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. 159.) On July 23, 2010, the County of Stanislaus filed its opposition to the motion. (Doc. 177.) A supplemental declaration in support of the opposition was filed July 29, 2010. (Doc. 178.) Thereafter, on July 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed his reply to the opposition. (Doc. 181.)

On August 2, 2010, this Court determined the motion was suitable for decision without oral argument; therefore, the hearing was taken off calendar and the matter was taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

DISCUSSION

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 previously ordered by the Court. More specifically, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter an order finding that: (1) the 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; (4) that the County of Stanislaus had no basis or justification to place the stop line for the traffic proceeding eastbound on Claribel, at the location as it existed at the time of the accident; (5) that the placement of the stop line was not reasonable under the circumstances that existed at the time of placement; (6) that the placement of the stop line was not reasonable under the circumstances that existed at the time of the accident; (7) that the County of Stanislaus had no basis or justification to move the stop line for the traffic proceeding eastbound on Claribel, as it did prior to the accident; (8) that the movement of the stop line was not reasonable under the circumstances that existed at the time of movement; (9) that the movement of the stop line was not reasonable under the circumstances that existed at the time of the accident; and (10) that the County of Stanislaus be prohibited from introducing any evidence to the contrary at trial. (Doc. 159 at 1-2, 8.)

Defendant County of Stanislaus opposes the motion. It indicates it has complied with this Court's orders to the extent possible and that such sanctions would deprive the County of "an essential immunity . . . and . . . virtually assure an adverse verdict." (Doc. 177.)*fn1

In reply to the opposition, Plaintiff contends that the County of Stanislaus has failed to produce documents as previously ordered, and further, that the County's unsupported references to a document retention policy are insufficient to prevent the sanctions Plaintiff seeks. (Doc. 181.)

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Plaintiff again 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.2d 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.