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.

Mood v. City of Costa Mesa

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 22, 2017

Ivin Mood
v.
City of Costa Mesa, et al.City of Costa Mesa,

          Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 90]

         On May 16, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Compel filed by Defendant City of Newport Beach (“Defendant”) and granting Defendant's request for expenses incurred in bringing the Motion to Compel in the sum of $1, 320.00. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 85. On May 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the award of expenses. Dkt. 90. For the reasons set forth below, (a) Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED, and (b) upon reconsideration, the Court reduces the award of expenses to the sum of $100.00 to be paid to Defendant City of Newport Beach no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Order.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On December 20, 2016, Defendant served Plaintiff Ivin Mood (“Plaintiff”) with Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. Dkt. 66-1, Declaration of Allen Christiansen, ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. A, B. Plaintiff did not serve responses to the discovery requests. Id. ¶ 5.

         On February 23, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories (“Motion”). Dkt. 66, MTC.

         On March 20, 2017, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to respond to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories within ten days, i.e. by March 30, 2017. Dkt. 72.

         On March 29, 2017, Defendant received Responses to its Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories. See Dkt. 73-2, Declaration of Allen Christiansen in support of Motion (“Christiansen Decl.”), Ex. A. The same day, Defendant's counsel sent Plaintiff a letter explaining how Plaintiff's Responses were deficient and requesting a meet and confer conference pursuant to Local Rule 37-1. Id. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's March 29, 2017 request to meet and confer. Id. ¶ 5.

         On April 12, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel seeking to compel further responses to certain requests for production and interrogatories. Dkt. 73. On May 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed “Supplemental Reponses to City of Newport Beach Request for Production of Documents and Further Responses to Special Interrogatories.” Dkt. 82.

         On May 16, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Compel and awarded Defendant its reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the Motion to Compel in the sum of $1, 320.00. Dkt. 85. The Court found Plaintiff had not provided any explanation that would make his failure to properly respond to the discovery requests substantially justified, and there were no circumstances that would make an award of expenses unjust. Id. Hence, the Court found an award pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) and (C) would be appropriate. Id. In addition, the Court found sanctions appropriate pursuant to Local Rule 37-4 for Plaintiff's failure to engage in meet and confer discussions in good faith. Id.

         On May 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's award of expenses arguing he is indigent and unable to pay. Dkt. 90. On June 1, 2017, Defendant filed an Opposition. Dkt. 93. On June 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Reply. Dkt. 104.

         II. APPLICABLE LAW

         Local Rule 7-18 provides

A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. No ...

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.