(PC) Thompson v. Addison

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 19, 2025·No. 1:22-cv-01545·Unknown

Opinion

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Thompson v. Addison, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

(PC) Thompson v. Addison ((PC) Thompson v. Addison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hyde & Drath v. Baker
24 F.3d 1162 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)