United States v. Peters

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants in part the United States’ motion to compel discovery and for sanctions in an action alleging healthcare-related False Claims Act violations. The court orders the defendants to comply with a prior discovery order and their agreed discovery protocols, produce improperly withheld documents, and submit a declaration describing the search for responsive materials. The court also schedules an order-to-show-cause hearing concerning possible civil contempt and requires supplemental briefing on requested factual sanctions.

Holdings

1. Defendants were required to conduct a diligent and comprehensive search for documents within their possession, custody, or control and to produce responsive documents, including documents relating to the entity defendants that Peters controlled or operated. Defendants had not shown that they conducted such a search.
2. The parties' agreed discovery-search protocols were binding, and defendants were ordered to comply with them.
3. The United States was entitled in part to an order compelling defendants to produce improperly withheld documents, comply with the prior discovery order, and submit a declaration detailing Peters's discovery participation and search efforts.
4. The court did not immediately deem the two proposed facts established; instead, it ordered supplemental briefing addressing how those facts were tied to defendants' failure to respond to the requests for production.
5. The court reserved the question of further sanctions and scheduled an in-person order-to-show-cause hearing to consider whether Peters should be held in civil contempt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants' failure to participate in preparing the required joint discovery statement warranted an adverse order or other relief under Eastern District of California Local Rule 251(d).
2. Whether defendants had conducted an adequate search and produced documents responsive to the first set of requests for production.
3. Whether defendants were required to comply with the parties' agreed discovery-search protocol.
4. Whether additional discovery sanctions, including possible civil contempt, were warranted for defendants' failure to comply with discovery obligations and the court's prior order.
5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled at that stage to have two proposed facts deemed established under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(i).

Disposition

other