(PC) Thompson v. Addison

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEWAYNE THOMPSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-01545-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 14 L. ADDISON, (Doc. No. 46) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions filed 18 on February 14, 2025. (Doc. No. 46). Defendant filed an Opposition and Declaration of Counsel 19 on March 5, 2025. (Doc. No. 47). 20 Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to provide a verification to Defendant’s 21 responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories. (Id. 2-3). Plaintiff further requests that the 22 Court impose sanctions, to include a finding of contempt and/or entry of default judgment, for 23 Defendant’s failure to return the verification page. (Id. at 3-4). In response, Defendant 24 acknowledges that due to a clerical error Defendant’s verification page to Defendant’s responses 25 to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories was delayed. (Doc. No. 47 at 1). Defendant affirms that 26 the verification has been provided to Plaintiff, the delay in providing Plaintiff with a signed 27 verification page was inadvertent and not done in bad faith, and Plaintiff suffered no prejudice 28 due to the delay. (Id. at 3, 7, ¶ 6). 1 The Court finds Defendant’s failure to timely provide a verification page to Defendant’s 2 | answers to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories was due to clerical error. Because Defendant has 3 | now provided a verification page such that any responses are under oath consistent with Fed. R. 4 | Civ. P. 33(b)(3), the Motion to Compel is moot. Further, because the delay was not due to bad 5 | faith and Plaintiff has suffered no prejudice from the delay, the Court finds sanctions are not 6 | justified. See Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 1994). 7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED as MOOT. 9 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED. 10 "| Dated: _ March 18, 2025 Wile. □□□ foareh Zack 12 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28