Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Michael C. Moore v. City of Ceres

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 22, 2012

MICHAEL C. MOORE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF CERES, ET. AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL (Document 19)

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 8, 2012, Defendants, City of Ceres, Deputy Chief of Police Mike Borges, and K. Kitcher, et. al. (hereinafter "Defendants") filed a Motion to Compel based on Michael Moore's (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") failure to provide initial disclosures. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. The matter is set for hearing on May 25, 2010 at 9:30 am. *fn1 The Court finds that the matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) and (g) and the hearing is vacated. Upon consideration of the pleadings, Defendants' Motion to Compel is GRANTED.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants in the Stanislaus County Superior Court of California (Case No. 667705). Defendants removed this action on August 22, 2009. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

On February 23, 2012, this Court issued a scheduling order requiring that the parties exchange initial disclosures by March 22, 2012. (Doc. 18). The Court also set the non-expert discovery deadline for March 18, 2013. Defendants filed the instant Motion to Compel on May 8, 2012, so the motion is timely filed.

III. THE MOTION TO COMPEL

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not served his initial disclosures despite the fact that initial disclosures were due March 22, 2012. On April 24, 2012, Defendants' counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a letter notifying him of the lack of compliance and requested that the initial disclosures be made no later than April 30, 2012. Declaration of John Whitefleet, Esq. dated March 22, 2010 at ¶¶ 4-6 and attached Exhibit A (Doc. 19-2). On May 22, 2012, Defendants notified the Court that no initial disclosures were made. (Doc. 23). Defendants requests that the Court order that Plaintiff produce his initial disclosures within ten days, and also that Plaintiff pay Defendants' attorneys fees for the filing of this motion in the amount of $472.50.

IV. DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) requires that parties provide initial disclosures regarding litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv). When a party fails to do so, the court may order payment of reasonable expenses including attorney's fees caused by the failure. Fec. R. Civ. P. 37 (c). Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide initial disclosures as ordered and has not responded to Defendants' motion. Accordingly, Defendants request that Plaintiff be ordered to produce his initial disclosures is granted. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Defendants' request for attorneys fees and finds that this request is reasonable.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the above, Defendants' Motion to Compel is GRANTED

1. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve his initial disclosures on Defendants within ten

(10) days after service of this order;

2. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay Defendants a total of $472.50.00 within thirty (30) days after service of this order; and

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of additional sanctions including, but not limited to, additional monetary sanctions, the exclusion of evidence at the time of trial, or dismissal of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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