From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ashford v. Global Expertise in Outsourcing Group

United States District Court, S.D. California
Nov 27, 2006
No. Civil 05-CV-267 J (CAB) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2006)

Opinion

No. Civil 05-CV-267 J (CAB).

November 27, 2006


ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY [DOC. # 61]; AND (2) REQUIRING OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES [DOC. # 70]


This case was brought by a state prisoner proceeding pro se for violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. Plaintiff's Motion For Discovery Sanctions

On May 25, 2006 Plaintiff Edward Dwayne Ashford ("Plaintiff" or "Ashford") filed a motion to compel responses to requests for production of documents and requests for admissions. The motion was granted in part and denied in part. [Doc. # 48]. On September 22, 2006 Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions for Defendant's failure to comply with the Court's Order. [Doc. # 61]. On November 16, 2006 Defendant filed an opposition. [Doc. # 72].

Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. If a party fails to comply with a previous court order compelling discovery, the party seeking discovery may file a motion for sanctions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2). To obtain discovery sanctions, however, the movant is typically required to show that the failure to comply was willful and deliberate. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff admits that Defendant provided responses to the requests as to which the original motion to compel was granted by the Court. Ashford then claims that the responses were incomplete because they did not include all of the documents sought. Defendant's responses stated that they were provided after "[a] diligent search and reasonable inquiry conducted by this responding party" confirmed that the produced documents were the only ones presently in possession, custody or control of Defendant. (Pl.'s Mot. for Sanctions, Ex. 2). Plaintiff provides no evidence that Defendant's verification of complete production was made in bad faith. Therefore the motion is DENIED.

II. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories

On November 1, 2006 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his interrogatories. [Doc. # 70]. On November 3, 2006 the Court ordered Defendant to file an opposition by November 15, 2006. No opposition to the motion to compel has been filed to date. Discovery in this case closes on January 29, 2007. Defendant is hereby given until December 11, 2006 to file an opposition. No further extensions will be granted. No reply shall be necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Ashford v. Global Expertise in Outsourcing Group

United States District Court, S.D. California
Nov 27, 2006
No. Civil 05-CV-267 J (CAB) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2006)
Case details for

Ashford v. Global Expertise in Outsourcing Group

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD DWAYNE ASHFORD, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL EXPERTISE IN OUTSOURCING…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. California

Date published: Nov 27, 2006

Citations

No. Civil 05-CV-267 J (CAB) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2006)