Filed: Jan. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . This matter was before the court on January 20, 2016, for hearing on defendants Edward Bonner, the Placer County Sheriff's Office, and County of Placer's ("County defendants") motion to compel plaintiff's responses to interrogatories and the court's January 7, 2016 order to show cause why plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failure to file an opposition to the County defendants' motion. ECF Nos. 64, 67. Attorney Tamiya Davis appeared on behalf
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . This matter was before the court on January 20, 2016, for hearing on defendants Edward Bonner, the Placer County Sheriff's Office, and County of Placer's ("County defendants") motion to compel plaintiff's responses to interrogatories and the court's January 7, 2016 order to show cause why plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failure to file an opposition to the County defendants' motion. ECF Nos. 64, 67. Attorney Tamiya Davis appeared on behalf ..
More
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter was before the court on January 20, 2016, for hearing on defendants Edward Bonner, the Placer County Sheriff's Office, and County of Placer's ("County defendants") motion to compel plaintiff's responses to interrogatories and the court's January 7, 2016 order to show cause why plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failure to file an opposition to the County defendants' motion. ECF Nos. 64, 67. Attorney Tamiya Davis appeared on behalf of the County defendants. Notwithstanding the court's order to show cause, no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff.
For the reasons stated on the record, the County defendants' motion to compel (ECF No. 64) is granted. Plaintiff shall provide responses to the County defendants' Interrogatories, Set One within fourteen days of the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.
Further, the court finds that the wholesale failure to timely respond to the defendants' interrogatories was not substantially justified. Further, in addition to ignoring the discovery request, plaintiff's counsel, Allen Hassan, failed to timely file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to compel in violation of Local Rule 230. Mr. Hassan has also ignored entirely the court's January 7, 2016 order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for that violation.1
In light of counsel's conduct in this case, Allen Hassan, and not his client,2 is ordered to pay the County defendants $671.50 for the reasonable expenses they incurred in bringing the instant motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (if a motion to compel is granted, the court must require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion); ECF No. 73 (declaration of Clayton Cook establishing that the reasonable expenses for litigating the motion totaled $671.50). Mr. Hassan is ordered to make this payment within 21 days of the date of this order. This sanction is personal to Mr. Hassan and is not to be passed on to his client in the form of attorney fees or costs. Mr. Hassan shall inform the plaintiff in writing of this order and provide a copy to the plaintiff. Mr. Hassan shall file a declaration within 21 days of the date of this order that has client has been so informed.
So Ordered.
