Tresor Maleka Ndandu v. Alvarado, et al Case No.: 2:23-08882 SRM (ADS) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed May 02, 2025 Spaeth, Autumn D., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DKT. NO. 70); GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 72); AND MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER I. INTRODUCTION *1 Before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Terminating Sanctions (the “Motion for Sanctions”) (Dkt. No. 70) and Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to Written Discovery and Request to Modify the Scheduling Order (the “Motion to Compel”) (Dkt. No. 72). Defendants filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Compel. (Dkt. No. 73.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion for Sanctions (the “Opposition”). (Dkt. Nos. 74, 75.) Defendants filed a Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. (Dkt. No. 77.) The Court vacated the hearing on the Motions set for April 16, 2025, and took the matter under submission. (Dkt. No. 78.) Having considered the parties' briefs, the record and the relevant legal authority, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the Motion for Sanctions and GRANTS the Motion to Compel and Request to Modify the Scheduling Order. II. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS The Motion for Sanctions seeks the dismissal of Plaintiff's case pursuant to the Court's inherent authority because Plaintiff allegedly fabricated evidence. Defendants contend that Plaintiff falsified a document purporting to be a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Form 7219 drafted on April 24, 2021, which indicated Plaintiff had abrasions and active bleeding in Plaintiff's groin and anal areas (the “At-Issue Document”). (Dkt. No. 70-1 at 2.) In support of the Motion for Sanctions, Defendants proffer a declaration from their counsel (the “Kozima Declaration”). The Kozima Declaration states that when defense counsel deposed Plaintiff, Plaintiff stated he had received injuries to his anus on April 24, 2021. (Kozima Decl., Dkt. No. 70-2 at ¶ 2.) Defense counsel declares that Plaintiff could not produce any medical documentation regarding those injuries, but Plaintiff indicated he would produce such documents after the deposition. (Id.) On February 26, 2025, defense counsel received the At-Issue Document, along with other documents, from Plaintiff via mail. (Dkt. No. 70-2 at 5-6.) The At-Issue Document is a CDCR Form 7219 with black circles drawn around the human pictorial's groin and anus. (Dkt No. 70-2 at 6.) Near the bottom right corner of the Document is the Bates label “AGO-000125”. (Id.) Defense counsel attests that AGO-000125 is a document produced by Defendants to Plaintiff, with that Bates label (the “Original Document”). (Kozima Decl. at ¶ 3.) Defense counsel attached a copy of the Original Document to the Motion for Sanctions. (Dkt. No. 70-2 at 9.) AGO-000125 is stamped at the bottom right corner of the Original Document. (Id.) There are no markings on the human pictorial's groin and anus in the Original Document. (Id.) All other notations on the At-Issue Document and the Original Document are identical. (Compare Dkt. No. 70-2 at 6 with Dkt. No. 70-2 at 9.) A. Parties' Arguments The Motion for Sanctions argues that it is clear Plaintiff created the At-Issue Document after Defendants served their discovery responses because the At-Issue Document includes the Defendants' Bates label. (Dkt. No. 70-1 at 2.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff willfully committed fraud and acted in bad faith by carefully and intentionally altering a CDCR Form 7219 to indicate that a medical staff member observed injuries to his groin and anal area on April 24, 2021. (Dkt. No. 70-1 at 5.) According to Defendants, Plaintiff's fabrication of evidence interferes with the expeditious and rightful resolution of this case, which weighs in favor of imposing terminating sanctions. (Id. at 4.) In addition, Defendants argue that lesser sanctions are not appropriate here because monetary sanctions are not available, and anything less than dismissal would encourage fraudulent conduct. (Dkt. No. 70-1 at 6-7.) *2 In opposition, Plaintiff argues that terminating sanctions are not appropriate. Plaintiff contends his April 2021 injuries are supported by his medical records and Plaintiff did not willfully disobey a court order or engage in any misconduct that warrants such a severe penalty. (Dkt. No. 74 at 2, 9). In addition, the Opposition states, And the plaintiff sent a defendant attorney picture Schaech pinpointed where exactly defendants assaulted him. That document is not evidence, on 1/27/2025 plaintiff received those documents from the defendant attorney by mail in the first place. Defendant attorney mailed plaintiff those document plaintiff medical record evidence. Because the defendant falsely claimed evidence is fabricated the court should not terminate the case. (Dkt. No. 74 at 2.) B. Applicable Law “Dismissal is an available sanction when ‘a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings’ because ‘courts have inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.’ ” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Nat. Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995)). Before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal, the court must consider the following factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Leon, 464 F.3d at 958 (citing Anheuser-Busch, 69 F.3d at 348). A court “need not make explicit findings regarding these factors.” U.S. for Use & Ben. of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Const. Co., 857 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir. 1988). However, “a finding of ‘willfulness, fault, or bad faith’ is required for a dismissal to be proper.” Id. (quoting Anheuser-Busch, 69 F.3d at 348). In addition, the court must consider “less severe alternatives” than outright dismissal. Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006). Courts, in their inherent authority, have discretion “to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991). C. Discussion Based on a comparison of the documents, and Plaintiff's statements in the Opposition, the At-Issue Document is an altered version of the Original Document. A sanction is appropriate to preserve the integrity of the record and ensure the matter is ultimately decided upon the merits. However, the evidence does not establish Plaintiff, acting pro se as a non-native English speaker, exhibited the requisite bad faith to warrant dismissal. The Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the Motion for Sanctions. The At-Issue Document (Dkt. No. 70-2 at 6), and any testimony from Plaintiff purporting its authenticity are excluded from evidence. The Original Document, produced by Defendants (Dkt. No. 70-2 at 9) is not excluded from evidence. III. MOTION TO COMPEL AND MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER Defendants move to compel substantive responses from Plaintiff to written discovery. (Dkt. No. 72.) The Motion to Compel requests an order for Plaintiff to serve supplemental responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”) and Request for Production of Documents (the “RFPs”). Plaintiff responded to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production with objections only. Defendants state Plaintiff did not produce documents responsive to the RFPs. (Dkt. No. 72-2 at 7.) Defense counsel and Plaintiff both attest that they met and conferred, and Plaintiff refused to supplement his objection-only responses. (Dkt. No. 72-1, 2, 102 & Dkt. No. 72-2 at 70.) A. Parties' Arguments *3 Defendants argue that each interrogatory and request for production seeks information highly relevant to the case. (Mot. to Compel, Dkt. No. 72-2 at 7.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot stand on general objections and refuse to produce substantive responses. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 72-2 at 9.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he provided “all the answers and the medical documentations” to defense counsel. (Pl. Opp. to Mot. to Compel, Dkt. No. 72-2 at 70.) B. Applicable Law Rule 26 permits discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,” considering various factors. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 34(a)(1). If a party fails to serve an adequate written response or produce responsive documents, a party may move for an order compelling such information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). On a motion to compel discovery, the requesting party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the discovery is relevant. Netlist Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 341 F.R.D. 650, 661 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (Spaeth, J.). Once relevance has been shown, the party resisting discovery bears the burden to show discovery should be disallowed and to support any objections. Laub v. Horbaczewski, 331 F.R.D. 516, 521 (C.D. Cal. 2019). C. Discussion The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden to show that the written discovery seeks information and documents relevant to the action. Plaintiff has not met his burden to substantiate his objections. The Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff must serve a supplemental response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production and produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control by May 16, 2025. IV. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE SCHEDULING ORDER Defendants request that the Court modify the Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 47) to extend the dispositive motion and motion to compel deadline (the “Request”). (Dkt. No. 73 at 2.) Plaintiff's Opposition does not address the Request. Finding good cause and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court grants the Request and modifies the Scheduling Order as follows. Any motions, including motions for summary judgment must be filed and served by or before June 16, 2025. V. CONCLUSION The Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the Motion for Sanctions. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel and orders Plaintiff to serve supplemental responses to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production by May 16, 2025. The Scheduling Order is modified such that any motions, including motions for summary judgment must be filed and served by or before June 16, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED.