FRANK EDWARD PETERS, II, et al. v. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.

FRANK EDWARD PETERS, II, et al.

v.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.

FACTUAL AND/OR PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 6, 2026, Plaintiffs Frank Edward Peters, II (Peters) and Shannon Takisha

Prince-Peters (Prince-Peters) filed a Complaint against Defendants San Bernardino County (esa

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department and West Valley Detention Center); Department of

Insurance; and California Department of Justice. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action

(1) false imprisonment; (2) negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) abuse

of process; (5) violation of Bane Act; (6) civil conspiracy; and (7) negligent supervision and

training.

Plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of Plaintiffs being arrested and booked into the West Valley

Detention Center on April 6, 2023. They allege that when bail was set, there was delay in

reduction, and with Plaintiffs not being promptly released when bail was satisfied. (Compl. ¶¶ 5-

14.)

Now before the Court is the County’s motions to: (1) compel Plaintiff Prince-Peters to

provide responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One); (2)

compel Plaintiff Prince-Peters deposition; and (3) compel Plaintiff Peters to provide responses to

Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One).

While an opposition was filed and states it is Plaintiffs’ opposition, Plaintiff Prince-Peters

did not sign it and therefore, it should not be considered as to her. The opposition was paper-filed

and therefore, both Plaintiffs’ signatures are required.

Plaintiff Peters states he is incarcerated and asks for an extension and reset of briefing

deadline. He requests the Court grant an extension of time, vacate any deadlines that expired while

Peters was being transferred through the federal prison system, and establish a new briefing

schedule that will give both Plaintiffs a meaningful opportunity to review the pleadings, confer

with one another, and present their positions to the Court.

Peters concedes that Defendant initially served Plaintiffs at their residence, but states that

Peters surrendered to federal custody on February 23, 2026, and had to undergo designation,

transportation, intake processing, and placement within the Federal Bureau of Prisons before

arriving at FCI La Tuna in Texas. During this period, Plaintiffs made diligent efforts to ensure

documents reached Peters, but despite such efforts, substantial delays occurred in the delivery of

legal mail, some was returned, and other correspondence was not received to allow Peters to

participate. Peters claims to have received numerous documents originally served on his

residential address on June 28, 2026, and to not have had a meaningful opportunity to review them.

Peters requests additional time to respond to all pending motions, notices, stipulations, and filings,

and additional time to receive documents. No evidence is submitted in support of the opposition.

Prince-Peters’ Motion

On reply, the County argues that Plaintiff Prince-Peters did not file opposition and refuses

to cooperate with discovery. Therefore, it argues that the Court should grant the motion.

In light of Prince-Peters not filing opposition, the County’s motions directed to Prince-

Peters are treated as unopposed. Therefore, the Court grants the County’s motions and orders

Prince-Peters to provide responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for

Production (Set One), without objections within 30 calendar days of the hearing. In addition, order

Prince-Peters to appear for her deposition within 30 calendar days of the hearing.

Peters’ Motion

On reply, the County argues that Peters is able to send and receive documents in prison and

there is no reason he cannot meaningfully participate in discovery while incarcerated. It argues

that Peters should not be entitled to special treatment for discovery due to being in prison. It also

asserts that Peters never requested an extension of time to respond and waited until after the County

filed the motion to raise his concerns. It again contends there is no indication that Peters will

participate in discovery without Court intervention and the Court should grant the motion as to

Peters.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard re Written Discovery

If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production were directed fails to serve

timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ.

Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2031.300, subd. (b).)1 The failure to provide timely responses

1 All further citations are to Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted. 12

waives any objections. (§§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a

motion to compel where no responses have been served. (§§ 2030.290; 2031.300.)

The court shall impose monetary sanctions against the losing party on the motion to compel

unless it finds that party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the

imposition of sanctions unjust. (§§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Analysis re Peters’ Motion

The Court grants the motion as to Peters and order him to serve responses to the Form

Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for Production (Set One), without objections, within 30

calendar days of the hearing.

Sanctions

With the Prince-Peters motions, Defendant seeks sanctions of $717.50 in attorney fees and

sanctions of $250 in each of the motions. This amount is comprised of 2 hours for the motion and

1.5 hours for the reply and to appear at the hearing at $205/hour. (Traver Decl. ¶ 8.) The basis for

the requested $250 sanction is not explained. Given that the Prince-Peters and Peters written

discovery motions are largely the same, and a singular reply was filed, the Court awards the County

sanctions of $410, 2 hours total, for the motions filed against Prince-Peters. The Court denies all

other requests for sanctions.

As for sanctions against Peters, no sanctions are requested; therefore, they are not at issue.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court rules as follows:

GRANTS the County’s unopposed motions as it relates to Plaintiff Prince-Peters. The

Court ORDERS Plaintiff Prince-Peters to serve responses, without objections, to the County’s

Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) within 30 calendar days of

the hearing; and ORDERS Plaintiff Prince-Peters to appear for her deposition within 30 calendar

days of the hearing. The Court GRANTS the County’s request and order sanctions of $410 against

Prince-Peters.

GRANTS the County’s motion to compel responses as it relates to Plaintiff Peters. The

Court ORDERS Plaintiff Peters to serve responses, without objections to the County’s Form

Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One), within 30 days of the hearing.

Sanctions are not requested and, therefore, are not at issue.

Counsel for the moving party is ordered to provide notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14