Puckett v. County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JEREMY PHILLIP PUCKETT, No. 2:22-cv-0350 KJM DB 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1) this matter came before the undersigned on February 23, 19 2024, for hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 67.) Attorneys Hilary Soloff and 20 Ryan Snyder appeared on behalf of plaintiff, who was also present. Attorney John Whitefleet 21 appeared on behalf of defendants. After hearing oral argument, plaintiff’s motion was taken 22 under submission. 23 The discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely unsupervised by the 24 district court.” Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018). 25 “When that cooperation breaks down, the district court has broad discretion to regulate discovery 26 conduct and, if needed, impose a wide array of sanctions.” Infanzon v. Allstate Insurance 27 Company, 335 F.R.D. 305, 311 (C.D. Cal. 2020). When the court grants a motion to compel it 28 must “after giving an opportunity to be heard,” award “reasonable expenses incurred in making 1 | the motion, including attorney’s fees,” unless the “opposing party’s position was ‘substantially 2 | justified’ or that ‘other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. 3 | Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)). “The burden of establishing this substantial justification or special 4 | circumstances rests on the party being sanctioned.” Id. 5 Moreover, “[uJnder its ‘inherent powers,’ a district court may also award sanctions in the 6 | form of attorneys’ fees against a party or counsel who acts ‘in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or 7 | for oppressive reasons.’” Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2006) 8 | (quoting Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1997)). □□□□□ 9 | 37(b) provides for sanctions against parties who unjustifiably resist discovery.” Quadrozzi v. 10 | City of New York, 127 F.R.D. 63, 73 (S.D. N.Y. 1989). “Monetary sanctions, in particular, may 11 | be awarded to compensate for added expense caused by the recusant party’s conduct.” Id. at 74. 12 | “In evaluating the propriety of sanctions, we look at all incidents of a party’s misconduct.” 13 | Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir. 1990). 14 For the reasons stated at the February 23, 2024 hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Within seven days of the date of this order plaintiff shall file briefing addressing the 16 | issue of awarding plaintiff reasonable fees and costs associated with bringing the current motion; 17 2. Defendants may file an opposition, or statement of non-opposition, within seven days 18 | of the filing of plaintiffs brief; and 19 3. Plaintiff's may file a reply brief within seven days thereafter. 20 | Dated: February 23, 2024 22 23 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 | DLB:6 95 DB/orders/orders.civil/puckett0350.0ah.0223 26 27 28