(PC) Rice v. Fielder ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KORDY RICE, No. 2:18-CV-2743-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 FIELDER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is before the Court following Defendant Fielder’s failure to comply 19 with the Court’s February 10, 2021, order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery 20 responses. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 84, for a default judgment. 21 A review of the docket reflects the following relevant procedural history: 22 April 27, 2020 Defendant Fielder, through counsel, filed a motion for a 60-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s 23 Interrogatories. See ECF No. 24. 24 April 30, 2020 The Court granted Defendant Fielder’s motion and ordered Responses to interrogatories due by June 29, 2020. See 25 ECF No. 25. 26 May 4, 2020 Fielder’s counsel, Stacia Lunn Johns, Esq., filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel on the basis of an 27 irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. See ECF No. 26. 28 1 May 20, 2020 While counsel’s motion was still pending, Defendants Fielder and Wetterer, through counsel, sought 60-day 2 extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for production. See ECF No. 27. 3 May 22, 2020 Again while counsel’s motion was still pending, the Court 4 granted the motion for an extension of time and ordered responses to requests for production due by August 10, 5 2020. See ECF No. 28. 6 June 12, 2020 The Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw leaving Defendant Fielder unrepresented and proceeding pro se. 7 Attorney Johns remained counsel for Defendant Wetterer. See ECF No. 30. 8 July 2, 2020 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Fielder to 9 provide initial responses to interrogatories. See ECF No. 31. 10 August 21, 2020 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendants Fielder and 11 Wetterer to provide further responses to requests for production. See ECF No. 33. 12 September 10, 2020 Defendant Wetterer, through counsel, filed an opposition 13 to Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production. See ECF No. 36. 14 February 10, 2021 The Court granted Plaintiff’s July 2, 2020, motion to 15 compel and ordered Defendant Fielder to serve responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and file notice with the court 16 of having done so within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order. See ECF No. 48. By separate order, the Court 17 denied Plaintiff’s August 21, 2020, motion to compel further responses to requests for production. See ECF No. 18 49. Because it appeared the Court’s prior orders had not been served on Defendant Fielder personally following 19 withdrawal of attorney Johns, the Court directed that Defendant Fielder’s address be updated on the docket 20 consistent with the address provided by counsel in her motion to withdraw, and further directed that the Court’s 21 orders at ECF Nos. 46, 47, 48, and 49 be served on Defendant Fielder personally. 22 March 24, 2021 Plaintiff filed his motion for sanctions with a proof of 23 service showing proper service on Defendant Felder personal at his address of record as updated on February 24 10, 2021. See ECF No. 53. 25 October 20, 2021 The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, which Defendant Fielder failed to oppose, and directed Plaintiff 26 to submit a declaration in support of appropriate sanctions. See ECF No 64. 27 October 27, 2021 Plaintiff filed his brief in support of sanctions. See ECF 28 No. 66. 1 August 4, 2022 Upon the conclusion of summary judgment proceedings related to other defendants, now dismissed from the action, 2 the Court directed Plaintiff to file a renewed motion for default judgment with all documentation and evidence 3 establishing the measure of his damages on the merits of his underlying claim against remaining Defendant Fielder. 4 The Court also ordered entry of Defendant Fielder’s default. See ECF No. 81. 5 August 23, 2022 Plaintiff filed his renewed motion for default judgment as 6 to Defendant Fielder. See ECF No. 84. 7 To date, Defendant Fielder, who has been proceeding pro se since June 12, 2020, 8 and who was served with the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel on February 10, 9 2021, has not complied with the order by filing a notice that he has served responses to Plaintiff’s 10 interrogatories. The record reflects that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, in which he states that he 11 has not received interrogatory responses from Defendant Fielder despite the Court’s order, was 12 also properly served on Defendant Fielder, who did not file any response to Plaintiff’s motion. 13 The record also reflects that the current motion for default judgment was served on Defendant 14 Fielder. 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) authorizes the Court to impose sanctions for 16 failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). Sanctions may be sought in the 17 district where the action is pending for not obeying a prior discovery order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 37(b)(2)(A), or for not producing a person for examination, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B). Rule 19 37(b)(2)(A) provides that the Court may “issue further just orders” for disobedience of a 20 discovery order. The rule also outlines a non-exhaustive list of possible appropriate sanctions 21 including: (1) directing that matters be taken as established; (2) prohibiting the disobedient party 22 from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses or introducing designated matters in 23 evidence; (3) striking pleadings; (4) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (5) 24 dismissing the action in whole or in part; (6) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient 25 party; or (7) treating the disobedience as contempt of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)- 26 (vii). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 In his brief in support of sanctions as well as the pending motion for a default 2 judgment, Plaintiff requests imposition of a default judgment against Defendant Fielder in the 3 amount of $5,000.00. See ECF No. 66. The Court construes Plaintiff’s motions as seeking relief 4 under Rule 37(b) for Fielder’s failure to comply with the Court’s prior discovery order. The 5 Court must weigh five factors before imposing case-terminating sanctions. See Bautista v. Los 6 Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 7 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of 8 litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to opposing 9 parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability 10 of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per 11 curiam). 12 Upon consideration of these factors, the Court finds that imposition of a default 13 judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Fielder in the amount of $5,000 is warranted. 14 First, Defendant Fielder is thwarting the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of this 15 litigation by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests as ordered. Second, Defendant 16 Fielder’s conduct is making it impossible for the Court to manage its docket by moving this case 17 forward. Third, absent responses to discovery, Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute his action on the 18 merits is prejudiced. Fourth, Defendant Fielder’s conduct makes it impossible to resolve this case 19 on the merits. 20 There also appears to be no available sanction which is less drastic given 21 Defendant Fielder’s complete refusal to comply with the Court’s orders or litigate this case. The 22 Court has considered other alternatives and finds the either inadequate to address Defendant 23 Fielder’s disobedience or too drastic under the circumstances. 24 Evidence exclusion and/or deeming matters established are inadequate because 25 they do not remedy Fielder’s apparent refusal to participate any further in this litigation. It stands 26 to reason that, if Fielder will not respond to discovery requests or this Court’s discovery orders, 27 he will not defend a motion for summary judgment or appear at trial. At the end of the day, the 28 case would stand as it does now while only further delaying resolution of the matter. 1 The Court has also considered the more traditional monetary sanction. This, 2 however, is also inadequate because to the extent it is essentially the same relief as entering a 3 default judgment as Plaintiff requests. If this Court were to order Fielder to pay a monetary 4 sanction subject to a default sanction should he fail to comply, and if Fielder were to continue to 5 refuse to litigate the case, the result would be the same as imposing a default judgment sanction 6 now, except for additional unwarranted delay. It could be that Defendant Fielder is moved by the 7 imposition of monetary sanctions in lieu of a default judgment, but this seems unlikely given his 8 history of refusing to comply with the Court’s other orders. 9 Rule 37(b)(2)(A) also allows the Court to treat Defendant’s disobedience of the 10 prior discovery order as contempt. This sanction seems too drastic. If the Court were to initiate 11 contempt proceedings, the probable result given Fielder’s conduct to date would be an order for 12 his arrest for contempt of court. The Court finds that arresting and possibly incarcerating 13 Defendant Fielder for violation of a discovery order would be far too harsh a sanction when 14 Plaintiff seeks a modest award of $5,000 by way of a default sanction. 15 Finally, the amount of damages requested by way of a default sanction – $5,000 – 16 is reasonable in light of the Eighth Amendment violation alleged in this case. Whether Plaintiff 17 would be able to enforce a default judgment is another matter. In any event, Plaintiff is entitled to 18 some form of sanction in his favor and the Court finds the requested relief both warranted and 19 reasonable. 20 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 84, for a default judgment be granted; 22 2. Plaintiff be awarded a default judgment in the amount of $5,00 against 23 Defendant Fielder as an appropriate sanction for Defendant Fielder’s violation of the Court’s 24 discovery order and for failure to defend in this action. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 2 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 4 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 5 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 6 || Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 9 || Dated: January 3, 2023 Ss..c0_, 10 DENNIS M. COTA 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28