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.

Giraldes v. Oania

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 3, 2018

LARRY GIRALDES, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
OANIA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants Oania, Casas, Tuers, Hampton, Macomber, Lynch, and Jibson violated his rights by retaliating against him due to his litigative conduct. ECF No. 13. Now pending before the court are two discovery related motions.

         First, defendants have filed a motion for terminating sanctions or involuntary dismissal (ECF No. 112) based on plaintiff's failure to respond to written discovery. For his part, plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 124) wherein he asks that the deadline for responding to defendants' discovery requests be extended. He states that he does not understand what “Bates” numbers are and this confusion militates in favor of additional time. Id. at 1-2. Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion. ECF No. 126. Plaintiff then filed a request for the court's notice (ECF No. 127), to which defendants responded (ECF No. 128) and plaintiff replied (ECF No. 129).

         For the reasons stated below, the court recommends that defendants' motion for sanctions be granted.

         I. Background

         The court granted (in part) defendants' motion to compel (ECF No. 74) on March 15, 2017. ECF No. 90. In response to this order, plaintiff served responses on April 6, 2017 (ECF No. 94-2, at ¶ 2, Exs. A-C) which defendants deemed deficient. After unsuccessfully attempting to resolve these deficiencies by way of a letter and a teleconference, defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions on May 15, 2017. ECF No. 94. On July 27, 2017, the court denied the motion for terminating sanctions without prejudice and directed the parties to meet and confer and make a good faith effort to resolve their issues informally. ECF No. 109. On October 27, 2017 defendants filed a renewed motion for terminating sanctions which indicated the following:

         1. To comply with the order to meet and confer, defendants' counsel made arrangements for an in-person meeting with plaintiff at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”) which was to be held on August 10, 2017. ECF No. 112-1 at 1 ¶ 2. A letter was mailed to both plaintiff and the CSP-SAC litigation coordinator advising them of the meeting. Id. at 1-2 ¶ 2. An informational chrono attached to plaintiff's motion indicates that, on August 2, 2017, the aforementioned letter was delivered to plaintiff and that he stated that he understood its contents. Id. at 8, Ex. B.

         2. On August 9, 2017, plaintiff called defendants' counsel and stated that an unnamed doctor, who had somehow been made aware of the meeting schedule for the next day, was reducing plaintiff's medication and, as a consequence, plaintiff might be too sick to attend the meeting. Id. at 4 ¶ 3. Defendants' counsel informed plaintiff that he still intended to proceed with the meeting. Id. After the phone call, defendants' counsel contacted the CSP-SAC litigation coordinator, who informed him that she was unsure as to how a doctor would have learned of the meeting, given that information concerning legal visits was disseminated only on a need-to-know basis. Id.

         3. The meeting, in spite of the foregoing, went ahead on August 10, 2017 and defendants' counsel noted that plaintiff was engaged in the conversation and did not appear sick. Id. at 4 ¶ 4. At the meeting, plaintiff agreed to provide supplemental responses to defendants' discovery requests by August 31, 2017. Id. A letter summarizing the discussion was sent to plaintiff by defendants' counsel on August 11, 2017 and no objections to this letter were forthcoming. Id.

         4. Plaintiff provided partial supplemental responses to defendants on or about August 16, 2017. Id. at 4 ¶ 5. Defendants' counsel sent a letter detailing the deficiencies, specifically plaintiff's failure to: (1) provide verified responses to all of the interrogatories; (2) respond to interrogatories one and two; and (3) identify the documents responsive to each discovery request. Id. at 31-32. The letter set a date - August 31, 2017 at 10 a.m., for the parties to discuss these issues by phone. Id. at 32. That conversation occurred as scheduled and, afterwards, defendants' counsel sent plaintiff a lengthy set of Bates stamped documents which plaintiff had provided at ¶ 2015 deposition. Id. at 5 ¶ 7. These documents were provided to plaintiff to facilitate his efforts in responding to the outstanding discovery requests. Id. Plaintiff subsequently acknowledged receipt of these documents and agreed to provide the additional responses by September 29, 2017. Id. at 5 ¶ 8.

         5. When defendants' counsel had not received the supplemental responses by October 9, 2017, he sent another letter to plaintiff stating as much. Id. at 54. To date, defendants' counsel states that he has still not received the discovery responses which plaintiff promised. Id. at 6 ¶ 11. He further states that, from July 26, 2017 to October 27, 2017, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had expended roughly 5, 100 dollars in connection with counsel's attempts to procure the foregoing responses from plaintiff. Id. at 6 ¶ 12.

         II. Legal Standards

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) states:

On motion or on its own, the court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii), if a party . . . fails to obey a ...

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.