Pierce v. Shroff et al

Filing 340

ORDER denying 218 Plaintiff's Motion to Produce Additional Specific Documents; denying 224 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery; denying 234 Motion to Reopen Discovery; denying 265 Plaintiff's Motion to Suspend Summary Judg ment; denying 266 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 291 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, denying 306 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, denying 315 Plaintiff 's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages for Additional Facts and Information; denying 323 Plaintiff's Motion of Summary of Discovery and Motion to Produce Supporting Information; denying 324 Plaintiff's Motion to Produce All E-M ail Electronic Records; granting in part and denying in part 326 Notice of Compliance with Order and 327 Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of Order; denying 330 Plaintiff's Request to File Motion to Supplement Summary Judgment Responses (3) Due to New Evidence and Recent Information Disclosed by Defendants in Discovery; and denying 339 Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order for Disclosure of Criteria Documents, Sanctions and Other Relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 9/19/17.(EJA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Thomas Michael Pierce,

No. CV-15-0037-PHX-SRB (DKD)

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Subolt Shroff, et al.,

13

ORDER

Defendants.

14
15

This Order addresses the pending motions which relate to the discovery and case

16

management issues which were the subject of several status conferences over the last six

17

months. After this extensive engagement and review of the discovery produced, the

18

Court is now satisfied that Plaintiff received the discovery to which he was entitled. In

19

particular this Order addresses Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce Additional Specific

20

Documents (Doc. 218); Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 224); Motion to Reopen

21

Discovery (Doc. 234); Motion to Suspend Summary Judgment (Doc. 265); Motion for

22

Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 266); Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 291);

23

Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 306); Motion for Leave to

24

File Excess Pages for Additional Facts and Information (Doc 315); Motion of Summary

25

of Discovery and Motion to Produce Supporting Information (Doc. 323); Motion to

26

Produce All E-Mail Electronic Records (Doc. 324); Defendants’ Notice of Compliance

27

with Order (Doc. 326); Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of Order (Doc.

28

327); Request to File Motion to Supplement Summary Judgment Responses (3) Due to

1

New Evidence and Recent Information Disclosed by Defendants in Discovery (Doc.

2

330); and Motion for Court Order for Disclosure of Criteria Documents, Sanctions and

3

Other Relief (Doc. 339).

4

Plaintiff’s discovery motions addressed two principal issues.

First, Plaintiff

5

sought Corizon documents which Plaintiff believed would be probative of the standard of

6

care he was required to receive. The Court allowed significant discovery into this issue

7

and required Defendants to produce discoverable documents directly to Plaintiff and to

8

produce some for in camera review. The Court’s in camera review resulted in further

9

orders requiring production to Plaintiff. With respect to a category of documents which

10

Plaintiff sought but Defendant’s counsel could not locate, the Court pressed Defendants’

11

counsel to make further efforts.

12

additional documents but in other cases Defendants’ counsel reported that no such

13

documents could be found. To the extent that Defendants state that they do not possess

14

requested documents, there is nothing more for the Court to do at the discovery stage.

15

This comment is without prejudice to any further assertion of a spoliation claim; however

16

there has been no obvious spoliation apparent before the undersigned. The second class

17

of documents concerned Plaintiff’s view that documents must exist supporting an

18

investigation of an incident between him and Defendant Shroff. The Court addressed this

19

incident and the existence of documents and Defendants maintain there are none. See

20

Doc. 331 and Defendants’ Counsel’s representations on the record. Thus this issue must

21

be considered addressed.

In some cases this resulted in the production of

22

Plaintiff summarized his view of the outstanding discovery issues in his document

23

“Motion of Summary of Discovery Documents” (Doc. 323) and Defendant’s presented

24

their view in a responding document (Doc. 328). The Court addressed these respective

25

views in its telephonic status conferences and directed that additional documents be

26

reviewed and produced. One Order engendered Defendants’ motion for reconsideration

27

in which Defendants argued that some of the discovery Plaintiff sought was outside of the

28

time frames and issues presented in the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 327). Upon

-2-

1

further review of the entire discovery context in this case the Court can fairly conclude

2

that Plaintiff has received the discovery to which he is entitled. Moreover, the Court’s

3

review of the nature of the discovery produced demonstrates that no further extension of

4

time is warranted for either discovery or briefing on the pending dispositive motions.

5

The first category of documents – those which Plaintiff thought might show what

6

Corizon was required to do – do not accomplish the task he desires. The documents all

7

contain guidance which is, as Defendants correctly contend, general, and is always

8

subject to the individualized assessment and decision making of the treating providers.

9

Whether this treatment violates Plaintiff’s constitutional rights cannot be determined by

10

any “criteria” document as no document the Court has seen creates any such “but for”

11

conclusion.

12

circumstances of an inmate’s care not whether a provider has followed its general criteria.

13

Because these documents cannot on their face and on their own accord create a genuine

14

issue of material fact, they cannot be the basis for an extension of briefing.

An Eighth Amendment claim necessarily turns on the individual

15

Overall, the Court’s review of the additional discovery produced demonstrates no

16

good cause for Plaintiff’s “Request to File Motion to Supplement Summary Judgment

17

Responses (3) Due to New Evidence and Recent Information Disclosed by Defendants in

18

Discovery” (Doc. 330).

19

Plaintiff’s most recent September 14, 2007 Motion for Court Order for Disclosure

20

of Criteria Documents, Sanctions and Other Relief (Doc. 339) does not demonstrate the

21

existence of determinative written criteria governing his treatment. In light of the Court’s

22

inquiries, and based upon the material submitted in the most recent motion, there is no

23

reason to believe that Plaintiff has not received the discovery to which he is entitled.

24

Accordingly,

25

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce

26
27
28

Additional Specific Documents (Doc. 218).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
(Doc. 224).

-3-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Reopen Discovery (Doc. 234).

2

IT IF FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Suspend Summary

3

Judgment (Doc. 265).

4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
to Complete Discovery (Doc. 266).

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc.
291).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
to Complete Discovery (Doc. 306).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Excess Pages for Additional Facts and Information (Doc 315).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion of Summary of
Discovery and Motion to Produce Supporting Information (Doc. 323).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce All E-Mail
Electronic Records (Doc. 324).

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendants’

17

Notice of Compliance with Order (Doc. 326), and Motion for Reconsideration and

18

Clarification of Order (Doc. 327).

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Request to File Motion to

20

Supplement Summary Judgment Responses (3) Due to New Evidence and Recent

21

Information Disclosed by Defendants in Discovery (Doc. 330).

22
23
24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order for
Disclosure of Criteria Documents, Sanctions and Other Relief (Doc. 339).
Dated this 19th day of September, 2017.

25
26
27
28

-4-