(PC) Rice v. Fielder ( 2022 )

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. ORDER 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. 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 To date, Defendant Fielder, who has been proceeding pro se since June 12, 2020, 2 and who was served with the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel on February 10, 3 2021, has not complied with the order by filing a notice that he has served responses to Plaintiff’s 4 interrogatories. The record reflects that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, in which he states that he 5 has not received interrogatory responses from Defendant Fielder despite the Court’s order, was 6 also properly served on Defendant Fielder, who has not filed any response to Plaintiff’s motion. 7 On this basis, the Court found that imposition of sanctions was appropriate. See ECF No. 64. 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) authorizes the Court to impose sanctions for 9 failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). Sanctions may be sought in the 10 district where the action is pending for not obeying a prior discovery order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 37(b)(2)(A), or for not producing a person for examination, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B). Rule 12 37(b)(2)(A) provides that the Court may “issue further just orders” for disobedience of a 13 discovery order. The rule also outlines a non-exhaustive list of possible appropriate sanctions 14 including: (1) directing that matters be taken as established; (2) prohibiting the disobedient party 15 from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses or introducing designated matters in 16 evidence; (3) striking pleadings; (4) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (5) 17 dismissing the action in whole or in part; (6) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient 18 party; or (7) treating the disobedience as contempt of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)- 19 (vii). 20 In his brief in support of sanctions, Plaintiff requests imposition of a default 21 judgment against Defendant Fielder in the amount of $5,000.00. See ECF No. 66. The court 22 must weigh five factors before imposing case-terminating sanctions. See Bautista v. Los Angeles 23 County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 24 Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 25 the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the 26 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 27 sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 28 / / / 1 Upon consideration of these factors, the Court finds that imposition of a default 2 judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Fielder is warranted. First, Defendant 3 Fielder is thwarting the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of this litigation by failing to 4 respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests as ordered. Second, Defendant Fielder’s conduct is 5 making it impossible for the Court to manage its docket by moving this case forward. Third, 6 absent responses to discovery, Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute his action on the merits is 7 prejudiced. Fourth, Defendant Fielder’s conduct makes it impossible to resolve this case on the 8 merits. Fifth, there appears to be no available sanction which is less drastic given Defendant 9 Fielder’s complete refusal to comply with the Court’s orders or litigate this case. Finally, the 10 Court finds that Defendant Fielder refusal to comply with the prior discovery order is willful and 11 in bad faith. 12 As outlined above, Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides the Court numerous options, 13 including striking pleadings and rendering a default judgment. Though Plaintiff seeks a default 14 judgment awarding him $5,000.00, the Court will first take the less-drastic step of striking 15 Defendant Fielder’s answer and entering his default. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to 16 submit evidence in support of his request for an award of monetary damages as a default 17 judgment. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s motions for a ruling, ECF Nos. 63, 79, and 80, are granted to the 20 extent the Court has now ruled on Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. 21 2. The answer filed on January 16, 2020, ECF No. 16, is stricken as to 22 Defendant Fielder only. 23 3. The Court finds that Defendant Fielder is in default and the Clerk of the 24 Court is directed to enter Defendant Fielder’s default on the docket. 25 4. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification regarding entry of default, ECF No. 78, 26 and motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 67 are denied as moot. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 5, Within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file and serve on 2 | Defendant Fielder a renewed motion for default judgment which includes all evidence in support 3 | of Plaintiff's request for an award of monetary damages in the amount of $5,000.00. 4 5 || Dated: August 4, 2022 Ssvcqo_ 6 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28