1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH JEROME WRIGHT, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01082-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 13 v. (Doc. 38) 14 SANDOVAL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Keith Jerome Wright is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to

. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 On September 13, 2024, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 28.) 21 On May 7, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to deem Plaintiff’s responses to certain 22 requests for admissions as admitted. (Doc. 31.) 23 On June 6, 2025, when Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition to the pending motion, 24 the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why Sanctions Should Not be 25 Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition. (Doc. 32.) 26 Specifically, Plaintiff was directed to file a written response to the OSC within 21 days; 27 alternatively, Plaintiff could comply with the OSC by filing an opposition or statement of non- opposition. (Id. at 2.) 1 On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion (Doc. 33) and Defendant 2 replied on June 26, 2025 (Doc. 36). 3 On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 37.) 4 Thereafter, on July 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Requesting Sanctions on 5 Defendant’s Counsel for Deploying Delay Tactics in Bad Faith.” (Doc. 38.) 6 On July 22, 2025, the Court issued its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 7 Defendant’s Motion to Deem Certain Requests for Admissions as Admitted. (Doc. 40.) 8 On July 24, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 41.) That same 9 date, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. (Doc. 42.) 10 On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Opposition to Defendant’s 11 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 43.) 12 On August 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time within which to file 13 his opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion. (Doc. 45.) 14 Plaintiff filed a timely opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion on August 15 18, 2025. (Doc. 46.) Defendant filed a reply to the opposition on August 29, 2025. (Doc. 47.) 16 This order resolves only Plaintiff’s motion filed July 11, 2025, concerning sanctions. The 17 Court will address the pending cross motions for summary judgment in due course. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 The Parties’ Briefing 20 Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions (Doc. 38) 21 Plaintiff cites to “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) or other appropriate sanctions 22 by the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or the local Rules” and contends Defendant’s counsel has 23 submitted duplicative motions asking the Court to deem responses to certain requests for 24 admissions propounded to Plaintiff as admitted because Plaintiff’s responses were vague and 25 ambiguous. Plaintiff states he “was never notified” by Deputy Attorney General Donato V. 26 Catrina or asked “to rephase or correct the questions at concern,” and that counsel had “sufficient 27 time to ask Plaintiff if he would correct the admissions questions” during Plaintiff’s deposition. 1 duplicative, Plaintiff did not object to the questions. Plaintiff argues defense counsel’s motions 2 are “wasting [the Court’s time] and finances in bad faith.” 3 Next, Plaintiff asserts that on June 6, 2025, he “was ordered to show cause in writing 4 within 21 days” and responded by filing an opposition to Defendant’s motion to deem admissions 5 admitted on June 11, 2025, “[rephrasing] the questions at concern” and in good faith. 6 Plaintiff asserts that after he filed a summary judgment motion, “Defendant’s counsel was 7 changed,” noting the most recent substitution makes the third counsel change “since 2025.” He 8 maintains that Defendant’s current counsel, Deputy Attorney General Caitlin M. Ryan, “has filed 9 a duplicative motion” despite Plaintiff’s June 11, 2025, good faith submission. 10 Finally, Plaintiff contends that defense counsel “is engaging in stall tactics” by submitting 11 duplicative motions in bad faith. He asserts that the “changing of counsel three (3) times in six (6) 12 months” is delaying the litigation and seeks an order from the Court imposing a monetary 13 sanction in the sum of $250 on defense counsel “and to proceed – litigation of summary of 14 judgement Plaintiff has filed.” 15 Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions (Doc. 42) 16 Briefly stated, Defendant contends no duplicative motions were filed, that Defendant is 17 permitted to “take both written discovery and depositions,” is excused from meeting and 18 conferring with Plaintiff before filing a motion to compel, and that the change in defense counsel 19 has not caused a delay of these proceedings. 20 The Legal Standards Concerning Sanctions 21 Rule 37(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, concerning motions for an order 22 compelling disclosure or discovery, provides as follows: 23 (A) If the Motion is Granted (or Disclosure or Discovery Is Provided After Filing). If the motion is granted – or if the disclosure or 24 requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed – the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require a 25 party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the 26 movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. But the court must not order this 27 payment if: 1 faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; 2 (ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or 3 objection was substantially justified; or 4 (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). 6 Analysis 7 Significantly, a review of the docket for this action reveals Defendant has not filed a 8 second or duplicative motion seeking to have Plaintiff’s admissions admitted. (See docket, 9 generally.) Rather, Defendant filed one such motion on May 7, 2025 (Doc. 31) and after Plaintiff 10 filed his opposition (Doc. 33), Defendant filed a reply (Doc. 36). Shortly thereafter, the Court 11 issued its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Deem Certain 12 Requests for Admissions as Admitted. (Doc. 40.) Simply put, Defendant’s motion and reply1 13 comport with this Court’s Local Rule 230(l).2 Further, the only motions pending on the docket for 14 this action involve this motion and the cross-motions for summary judgment. 15 Moreover, Defendant is correct in asserting Defendant is permitted to propound both 16 written admissions and to take Plaintiff’s deposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 30 & 36. 17 1 Stated another way, Defendant’s reply brief was not a second motion, but rather a permitted response to Plaintiff’s 18 opposition.

19 2 The Local Rules, concerning motions in prisoner actions, provide in pertinent part: 20 All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed in actions wherein one party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria persona, shall be 21 submitted upon the record without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions need not be noticed on the motion calendar. Opposition, if 22 any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the motion. A 23 responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. 24 Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion 25 and may result in the imposition of sanctions. The moving party may, not more than fourteen (14) days after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF, serve and 26 file a reply to the opposition. All such motions will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired. 27 Local Rule 230(l) (italics added). 1 | “[T]he purpose of requests for admission is to narrow the issues for trial by identifying and 2 | eliminating those matters on which the parties agree.” Thorpe v. Hearn, No. 2:19-cv-1974 KJM 3 | KIN P,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2022) (citation and quotation omitted). And, 4 | as Plaintiff was previously advised, Defendant may ask questions at the deposition concerning 5 | Plaintiff's responses to written discovery requests. (See Doc. 40 at 5.) 6 To the extent Plaintiff argues defense counsel was required to meet and confer prior to 7 | filing the motion on May 7, 2025, Plaintiff is mistaken. As provided for in this Court’s Discovery 8 | and Scheduling Order issued September 13, 2024, “the requirement set forth in Federal Rules of 9 | Civil Procedure 26 and 37 of a good faith conference or attempt to confer with the other party to 10 | resolve disputes shall not apply.” (See Doc. 28 at 2.) 11 As concerns Plaintiff's complaints concerning the three changes in counsel representing 12 | Defendant Sandoval within the previous six months, a review of the docket for this action reveals 13 | that is not the case. On September 9, 2024 —more than a year ago—Deputy Attorney General 14 | Catrina replaced Deputy Attorney General Rebecca Brandel. (Doc. 25.) Then on June 24, 2025, 15 | Deputy Attorney General Caitlin M. Ryan filed a Notice of Appearance, indicating she was □□□□ 16 | attorney with principal charge of the case ...” (Doc. 35.) The docket presently reflects both 17 || attorneys represent Defendant Sandoval. And, as noted above, no “duplicative” motions have 18 | been filed. The Court finds no delay by assigned defense counsel. 19 In sum, the Court finds no basis for imposition of a monetary sanction on Defendant or 20 | defense counsel. Plaintiffs request for sanctions will be denied. 21 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 22 For the reasons given above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion or 23 | request for sanctions filed July 11, 2025 (Doc. 38) is DENIED. 24 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 29 Dated: _ December 4, 2025 | Ww VV KD 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28