Bridges v. County of Sacramento ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BROOKS BRIDGES and ANITA No. 2:18-cv-2978-MCE-EFB STENGEL, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, DAWN 15 WALKER, JENNIFER LAMB, SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S 16 DEPARTMENT OFFICER MA, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiffs to provide responses to interrogatories and 21 requests for production of documents, which they noticed for hearing on February 5, 2020. ECF 22 No. 10. Plaintiffs have filed nothing in response to the motion. For the reasons explained below, 23 the February 5 hearing is vacated and defendants’ motion to compel is granted. 24 On October 11, 2019, defendants served plaintiffs by mail with interrogatories and 25 requests for production of documents. Decl. of Nicholas McCinney ISO Mot. to Compel 26 (“McCinney Decl.”), Exs. A-D. According to that declaration, plaintiffs’ responses to the 27 requests were due by November 15, 2019. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2), 6(d). Plaintiffs, 28 however, failed to serve responses to defendants’ discovery requests. Defendants’ counsel 1 subsequently reached out to plaintiffs’ counsel on multiple occasions to request responses to the 2 outstanding discovery requests, but his efforts proved unsuccessful. McCinney Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, Ex. 3 E. 4 Accordingly, defendants now move to compel plaintiffs to provide responses. In violation 5 of the court’s local rules, plaintiffs failed to timely file an opposition to the motion. E.D. Cal. 6 L.R. 251(e) (excusing the requirement for filing a joint statement when there has been a complete 7 failure to respond to a discovery request, and requiring the responding party to file an opposition 8 not later than seven days before the hearing date). Since plaintiffs have failed to provide any 9 basis for their failure to provide responses, defendants’ motion to compel is granted and plaintiffs 10 are ordered to provide responses without objection. See Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 11 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975) (the party resisting discovery has the “heavy burden of showing why 12 discovery was denied.”); Hansford v. Solano Cnty. Dept. Health and Human Services, 2011 WL 13 3208151, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2011) (“[I]t is well-settled that a failure to respond to 14 discovery requests waives objections, including those based on privilege.”) (citing Davis v. 15 Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981)). 16 Defendants also request plaintiffs be ordered to pay them $800 for the reasonable 17 expenses they incurred in bringing their motion to compel. ECF No. 10-1 at 4; see Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 37(a)(5) (courts must “require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the [discovery] motion 19 . . . to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s 20 fees.”). The court finds that the four hours counsel spent drafting the motion and his hourly rate 21 of $200 are reasonable. Accordingly, plaintiffs are also ordered to pay defendants $800. 22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 23 1. The February 5, 2020 hearing is vacated; 24 2. Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to provide responses to interrogatories and 25 request for production of documents (ECF No. 10) is granted; 26 3. Within 10 days from the date of service of this order, plaintiffs shall serve their 27 responses to defendants’ Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set 28 One; and 1 4. Within 10 days of this order, plaintiffs shall reimburse defendants for the reasonable 2 || expenses they incurred in the amount of $800. 3 || DATED: February 4, 2020. 4 tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28