(PS) Iliya v. County of Sacramento

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DAUDA ILIYA, Case No. 2:22-cv-1305-KJM-CSK PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AND WARNING OF SANCTIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (ECF No. 48) 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Presently before the Court is a motion to compel discovery responses filed on 18 August 1, 2024 by Plaintiff Dauda Iliya. Pl. Mot. (ECF No. 48.)1 Plaintiff seeks a court 19 order compelling Defendants County of Sacramento, Anne Marie Schubert, Scott R. 20 Jones, and Matthew McCune to respond to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, requests 21 for production of documents, and requests for admissions. Id. Plaintiff asserts these 22 discovery requests were served on Defendants on February 13, 2024. Id. at 5. 23 This is Plaintiff’s third attempt at requesting a court order on this subject. For the 24 reasons previously stated and as restated below, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. 25 Further, Plaintiff is warned that continued filings disregarding the Court’s orders will be 26 met with sanctions, which could include dismissal of his case with prejudice. [27] 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 , Fed. R. Civ. 28 P. 72 , and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 On February 1, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order that closed fact 3 discovery on September 13, 2023. (ECF No. 18.) On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff 4 requested an extension of time to complete discovery. (ECF No. 20.) The Court granted 5 this motion, ordered fact discovery was to be completed by February 13, 2024, and 6 warned that further extensions of time were unlikely to be granted without a showing of 7 diligence on Plaintiff’s part. (ECF No. 23.) 8 On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed his second request for an extension of the 9 discovery deadlines. (ECF No. 25.) The same day, Plaintiff emailed requests for 10 interrogatories and production of documents to defense Counsel. (See ECF No. 27 at 3.) 11 Defendants opposed further extensions of time. (ECF No. 27.) On March 12, 2024, the 12 Court issued an order denying further extensions of time, noting Plaintiff’s lack of 13 diligence in pursuing discovery, failure to raise the issue of the unanswered discovery 14 requests with the Court until the day fact discovery closed, and failure to heed the 15 Court’s prior warnings. (ECF No. 29.) 16 On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff again moved to modify the scheduling order, asserting 17 he had not received responses from Defendants regarding discovery. (ECF No. 34.) 18 Defendants opposed this second request and cited their objections to the untimely 19 service of the discovery requests. (ECF No. 43.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s third 20 request to modify the scheduling order for the same reasons as stated in the Court’s 21 March 12, 2024 order. (Id.) In doing so, the Court noted Plaintiff’s February 13, 2024 22 discovery requests were not timely served, as they needed to be sent to Defendants well 23 before the close of the fact discovery deadline. (Id.) 24 Inexplicably, Plaintiff has now filed a motion to compel responses to his untimely 25 discovery requests despite multiple orders informing Plaintiff that fact discovery has 26 been closed since February 13, 2024, and that any discovery disputes needed to be 27 raised well in advance of that deadline. Plaintiff did not meet the “good cause” standard 28 for a modification of the scheduling order in his previous requests. See Johnson v. 1 | Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Nothing has changed 2 || regarding this issue. Discovery is closed, and so Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied. 3 Further, Plaintiff is warned that continued failure to heed the Court’s orders and 4 || seek discovery when discovery is closed will result in sanctions, which may include 5 | dismissal sanctions. Under Rule 41, a court may dismiss an action for failure to comply 6 | with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court's local rules, or any order of the 7 || court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This Court’s Local Rules are in accord. See E.D. Cal. Local 8 | Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order 9 | of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 10 | authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”); E.D. Cal. Local 11 | Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply with the federal rules, local 12 || rules, or other applicable law may support dismissal of that party’s action). The court 13 | may act on its own accord in exercising this authority. Hells Canyon Preservation 14 | Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (approving sua sponte 15 | dismissals under Rule 41(b)). 16 ORDER 17 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 48). Further, 18 || the Court WARNS that sanctions will issue if Plaintiff continues to attempt to seek 19 || discovery or alter the discovery schedule in this case. [20] 21 | Dated: August 7, 2024 Cc (i $ □□ 22 CHI SOO KIM 93 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 || 3, iliy.1305