Espinoza v. City of Tracy, 2:15-cv-751-WBS-KJN. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180205971
Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court is defendants' motion for discovery sanctions, which came on for hearing on February 1, 2018. (ECF No. 53.) At the hearing, attorney Russell Robinson appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff, and attorney Arlin Kachalia appeared in person on behalf of defendants. In both his declaration in opposition to the motion, as well as his representations at the hearing, Mr. Robinson largely conceded that he had no
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court is defendants' motion for discovery sanctions, which came on for hearing on February 1, 2018. (ECF No. 53.) At the hearing, attorney Russell Robinson appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff, and attorney Arlin Kachalia appeared in person on behalf of defendants. In both his declaration in opposition to the motion, as well as his representations at the hearing, Mr. Robinson largely conceded that he had not..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before the court is defendants' motion for discovery sanctions, which came on for hearing on February 1, 2018. (ECF No. 53.) At the hearing, attorney Russell Robinson appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff, and attorney Arlin Kachalia appeared in person on behalf of defendants. In both his declaration in opposition to the motion, as well as his representations at the hearing, Mr. Robinson largely conceded that he had not complied with his discovery obligations and, more specifically, with the court's prior December 15, 2017 order to provide certain discovery and disclosure materials.
After carefully reviewing the parties' written briefing (ECF Nos. 53, 54, 59), and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion for sanctions (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
2. No later than February 8, 2018, plaintiff's counsel shall personally pay defendants' counsel $2,000.00 in monetary sanctions based on his failure to comply with his discovery obligations and the court's December 15, 2017 order, requiring defendants to resort to motion practice. Plaintiff's counsel shall not directly or indirectly attempt to recover the amount of such sanctions from his client.
3. No later than February 6, 2018, plaintiff shall provide to defendants all supplemental responses, documents, privilege logs, and amended initial disclosures that were previously ordered produced in the court's December 15, 2017 order. (See ECF No. 52.)
4. Defendants' request for evidence preclusion sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, subject to potential renewal at a later juncture if appropriate. Instead, in an attempt to first impose lesser sanctions, the court imposes the above-mentioned monetary sanctions and modifies the court's April 4, 2017 pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 47) to allow the following unilateral extensions for DEFENDANTS ONLY:1
a. Fact discovery shall be so conducted as to be completed by March 15, 2018.
b. Defendants' expert disclosures and reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) shall be due February 27, 2018. With regard to expert testimony intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before March 20, 2018. Any expert depositions shall be completed by April 9, 2018.
c. All other case deadlines remain unchanged.
5. Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that failure to strictly comply with the deadlines and provisions of this order, failure to timely comply with discovery obligations, and/or further undue delay of the action may result in the imposition of case-dispositive terminating sanctions.
6. Plaintiff's counsel shall serve a copy of this order on his client.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. To the extent that plaintiff contends that an extension of any current case deadline applicable to plaintiff is warranted, plaintiff shall first meet and confer with defendants in an attempt to seek an appropriate stipulation for the court's consideration. If unsuccessful, plaintiff may then file an appropriate motion setting forth good cause for modification of the scheduling order.
Source: Leagle
