IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 24, 2012
JAMES GARCIA, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(c), which is premised on the assertion that defendants failed to comply with several of the court's discovery-related orders.*fn1 Attorney Guy Danilowitz appeared on behalf of plaintiff, who is deceased.*fn2 Attorney Sheri M. Chapman appeared on defendants' behalf.
Having considered the parties' submissions and oral arguments, the undersigned denies plaintiff's motion for sanctions. Among other reasons for denying the motion that were provided at the hearing, plaintiff's moving papers do not present with sufficient clarity what precise aspects of the court's various orders plaintiff believes defendants violated, i.e., what material the court specifically ordered produced in a specific order, what material defendants failed to produce, and why such failure violates the court's order. For this reason and the other reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 73) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.