(PC) Venegas v. Mendoza ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SALVADOR VENEGAS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00962-ADA-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR 12 v. FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER 13 MENDOZA, et al., ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND 14 Defendants. 15 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS 16 17 On August 30, 2022, the Court received in camera documents from Defendants. (See ECF 18 No. 58). Defendants state that the documents were withheld from Defendant Mendoza’s response 19 to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Id. at 2). Defendants indicated that 20 they objected to some of the requests on the basis of the official information privilege. (Id.) 21 According to Defendants, the withheld documents were submitted for in camera review to the 22 Court in compliance with the Court’s scheduling order. (Id.)1 23 The Court writes now because it appears that such documents should have either been 24 produced to Plaintiff or formally objected to pursuant to the Court’s discovery order requiring the 25 parties to exchange documents identified by the Court as central to the dispute. (ECF No. 48). 26 The Court thus requires Defendants to show cause within seven days as to why they did not 27 28 1 The Court will issue an order directly addressing this objection in a separate order. 1 provide these documents to either Plaintiff or the Court in response to the Court’s discovery 2 order. Additionally, Defendants should notify the Court whether they are now fully in compliance 3 with that order. 4 The Court issued a discovery order on May 27, 2022. (ECF No. 48). As part of that order, the Court required all parties to produce certain categories of documents including, 5 b. Witness statements and evidence that were generated from investigation(s) 6 related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, such as an investigation stemming 7 from the processing of Plaintiff’s grievance(s). . . . 8 c. Incident reports regarding the use of force incident(s) alleged in the complaint, 9 including Incident Report Log Number 17207 and photographs of evidence logged. 10 (Id. at 2). The Court provided that the parties could object to production “within sixty days from 11 the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of receiving additional documents and/or 12 evidence).” (Id. at 3-4). Additionally, the Court’s discovery order specified that if Defendants 13 objected based on the official information privilege, then Defendants should follow the 14 procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order for lodging such objections. (Id. at 4). 15 Sixty days passed and Defendants did not submit any objections to the discovery order or 16 documents for the Court’s in camera review pursuant to the Court’s procedures. 17 On August 30, 2022, more than a month after the objection deadline, the Court received 18 the documents referenced above for the Court’s review. Upon review, they contain witness 19 statements and documents related to Incident Report Log Number 17207. It thus appears that they 20 are responsive to the Court’s discovery order, and as such, should have been produced as part of 21 the document exchange ordered by the Court. If, at that time, Defendants objected to producing 22 those documents, including the as described witness statements, they should have filed their 23 objections with the Court and submitted such documents for in camera review as required by the Court’s procedures. 24 The Court has inherent authority to issue sanctions. “[I]t is firmly established that [t]he 25 power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts. This power reaches both conduct before 26 the court and that beyond the court’s confines, for [t]he underlying concern that gave rise to the 27 contempt power was not ... merely the disruption of court proceedings. Rather, it was 28 1 | disobedience to the orders of the Judiciary, regardless of whether such disobedience interfered 2 | with the conduct of trial.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (alterations in 3 | original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Local Rule 110 also provides that 4 | “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 5 | be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 6 the Court.” 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Defendants shall show cause why sanctions should not issue for failure to comply with 9 a court order. Defendants shall file a response within seven (7) days explaining why the documents submitted for in camera review on August 30, 2022, were not submitted earlier to the Court pursuant to the Court’s discovery order (See ECF No. 11 48): 2 2. The Court also requests certification that Defendants are now fully in compliance with 13 the Court’s discovery order; 3. Failure to respond to this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 15 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ October 17, 2022 [JF Phy — 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28