DEAN D. PREGERSON, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the defendants' related motions for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and/or the Court's inherent power dismissing the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice for the plaintiffs' failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the Court's June 20, 2002 Order.
The defendant contends that the plaintiffs have continually refused to produce documents in this matter, or respond to other discovery, either as part of the plaintiffs' obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, or in response to formal written discovery propounded on plaintiffs on January 4, 2002. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs have violated Magistrate Judge Hillman's Order of June 20, 2002 stating that: "Plaintiff [is to] provide responses, without objections, to the written discovery propounded on January 4, 2002 by defendant Sheriff Lee Baca no later than June 18, 2002." (Def's Ex. D (Court's 6/19/02 Order for Depositions of Plaintiff).) In violation of this Order, the defendant contends, no documents were produced, and the interrogatory responses were evasive and did not provide the information requested.
The defendant contends that its motions are properly before this Court because magistrate judges are not empowered to rule on motions to dismiss. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) provides in relevant part:
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except
a motion . . . to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. . . .
(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A)
28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A) (B) (footnote omitted).
The defendant moves not only to dismiss this action, but for numerous other forms of relief, many of which are expressly related to the timing and procedures for discovery in this action.
For example, in the Hart v. Baca matter, pursuant to Rule 30(a) (2), the defendant moves for an order: (a) permitting defendant to take plaintiff's deposition while incarcerated at Taft Correctional Institution; (b) compelling plaintiff to provide further responses to the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents propounded by defendant on January 4, 2002; and (c) extending the time for defendant to conduct any necessary follow-up discovery and designate experts. In the alternative, the defendant moves for an order staying this action until the plaintiff's release from federal custody, which is scheduled to occur in December 2002, at which time the defendant can take the plaintiff's deposition in Los Angeles and obtain the requested documents that the plaintiff has implied he cannot produce because he is incarcerated. Finally, the defendant moves for monetary sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel Stephen Yagman, in the amount of at least $2,619.40 as reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in connection with plaintiff's counsel's conduct which resulted in the termination of plaintiff's deposition on July 18, 2002 and with additional attorney's fees and costs incurred in connection with this motion.
The Court finds that such matters are more properly before Magistrate Judge Hillman, not least because the defendant's motions address the plaintiffs' alleged non-compliance with Magistrate Judge Hillman's June 20, 2002 Order. This Order was issued in response to a prior Motion for Terminating Sanctions brought by the defendant. It appears that Magistrate Judge Hiliman has already invested significant time and energy gaining familiarity with this dispute, as well as working with the parties to craft resolutions to many of the same issues which are again before the Court in these motions. (See e.g. Def's Mot. at 5.)
In the event that Judge Hillman determines that the ultimate relief sought by the defendant is warranted (i.e. that the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed with prejudice or terminating sanctions awarded), the recommended disposition may be submitted to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B).
In order to allow the parties sufficient time to address these motions, the Court orders that the discovery cut-off date in this matter be extended for an additional 90 (ninety) days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.