Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 242 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
11 vs.
(Doc. 215)
12 COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14 ___________________________________/
15
16
17 Plaintiff’s motion to compel further production of documents and request for monetary
18 sanctions (Doc. 215) came on regularly for hearing before United States Magistrate Judge
19 Theresa A. Goldner on September 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in the United States District Court
20 courtroom at 1300 18th Street, Suite A, Bakersfield, California. Eugene D. Lee appeared for
21 Plaintiff and Mark A. Wasser appeared for Defendants. The Court ruled from the bench as to the
22 majority of the requests for production that were the subject of the motion, agreed to and
23 thereafter did conduct an in camera review as to the documents identified on Defendants’
24 privilege log as Bates Stamp numbers 16683-16894, ordered the parties to meet, confer, and
25 report back to the Court as to the requests for production numbered 66 and 67, and took the
26 request for sanctions under submission.
27
28 -1-
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 242 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 2 of 4

1 On October 6, 2008, the Court issued a written order granting the motion to compel
2 further production in part and denying it in part, including granting the motion as to the
3 documents identified as Bates Stamp numbers 16683-16894. (Doc. 240). On October 10, 2008,
4 Defendants’ attorney advised the Court by letter copied to Plaintiff’s attorney, that the parties had
5 met, conferred, and resolved their disagreements regarding the requests for production numbered
6 66 and 67. Thus, the only issue left to be decided is Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.
7 Analysis
8 When a motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery is granted in part and
9 denied in part, the Court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable
10 expenses for the motion.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(C). What constitutes reasonable expenses is a
11 matter for the Court’s discretion. See Biovail Laboratories, Inc. v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
12 233 F.R.D. 648, 654 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
13 Here, Plaintiff’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff has requested
14 an award of $5,120.00 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents were
15 directed to Defendant County of Kern. In determining whether to apportion fees, the Court has
16 considered whether Defendant County of Kern was substantially justified in refusing to produce
17 the requested documents before the motion was filed, and concludes that it was not, because the
18 majority of its responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production asserted unfounded objections
19 including a non-applicable state law medical peer review privilege that had already been the
20 subject of a prior discovery motion in this case.
21 In determining how to apportion Plaintiff’s expenses in bringing the motion, the Court
22 has also considered Plaintiff’s relative degree of success in bringing the motion, the number of
23 hours reasonably expended by Plaintiff’s attorney, and the propriety of the hourly rate requested
24 by counsel in light of his experience and the level of sophistication required in this matter. See
25 Green v. Baca, 225 F.R.D. 612, 614-615 (C.D. Cal. 2005). At the motion hearing, the attorneys
26 were given an opportunity to argue each item or category of documents sought to be compelled
27
28 -2-
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 242 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 3 of 4

1 as well as the sanction request, each were given an opportunity to consider the opposing party’s
2 position, and each of them made concessions. For example, Plaintiff withdrew his motion to
3 compel as to three items on Defendant’s privilege log and four of the requests for production,
4 albeit after Defendants’ attorney represented that the latter had already been produced or could
5 not be located. Similarly, Defendant agreed to produce at least three of the items on the privilege
6 log and the documents that are the subject of at least five of the requests for production, albeit
7 subject to a stipulated protective order. As reflected in the Court’s written order after hearing
8 (Doc. 240), the motion to compel was granted as to all but two of the requests for production.
9 Plaintiff asks the Court to order that he be compensated at the rate of $400.00 per hour for
10 time spent by his attorney. The declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney states that he charges $400 per
11 hour, spent in excess of 8.8 hours meeting and conferring with opposing counsel, researching and
12 drafting the moving papers, and anticipated spending and additional 4 hours, traveling and
13 attending the motion hearing. (Doc. 227-2, pp. 179-180)1. Plaintiff seeks “ $5,120 in
14 compensation for the 8.8 hours charged ($3,520), and 4 hours anticipated to be charged ($1,600),
15 in connection with this motion and underlying dispute.” (Id. at p. 180). The Court finds no need
16 to reduce the requested number of hours. However, the Court finds that the hourly rate requested
17 is excessive given the experience of counsel, the nature of the work performed in this matter,
18 and the community standard for attorneys’ fees.
19 The Court has considered the relative merits of each party’s position on the motion, the
20 degree of success in bringing the motion, the hours reasonably expended by Plaintiff’s attorney,
21 and the propriety of the hourly rate requested by Plaintiff’s attorney, as part of the totality of the
22 circumstances surrounding this discovery dispute. Based on the totality of the circumstances,
23 the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees in the amount of
24 $3,200.00, which the Court finds is an appropriate apportionment of Plaintiff’s reasonable
25 expenses for bringing the instant motion.
26
1
27 The page numbers reflect the Court’s electronic case filing headers.

28 -3-
 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 242 Filed 10/15/2008 Page 4 of 4

1 Order
2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3 1. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions on the motion to compel (Doc. 215) is GRANTED as
4 follows:
5 Plaintiff is awarded $3,200.00 in attorney’s fees as reasonable expenses pursuant to
6 Fed.R. Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(C), to be paid by Defendant County of Kern within thirty days from the
7 date of this Order.
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated: October 15, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner
j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -4-