Mayfield v. Mix et al

Filing 65

ORDER GRANTING 61 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration and ORDER VACATING 60 Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/31/2013. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for the issuance of a new discovery and scheduling order. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DWAYNE MAYFIELD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
M. MIX, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10cv01091 AWI DLB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Document 61)
ORDER VACATING DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Document 60)

Plaintiff Dwayne Mayfield (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint for violation of

19

the Eighth Amendment against Defendants E. Mason and M. Mix.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

20
21

Plaintiff filed this action on June 16, 2010. On January 12, 2011, the Court dismissed

22

Defendant Mason and ordered that the action go forward against Defendant Mix based on the use of

23

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendant Mix filed an answer on July 25,

24

2011.

25

On July 26, 2011, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, setting the discovery

26

deadline for March 26, 2012. On April 30, 2012, Plaintiff requested an extension of the discovery

27

deadline. The request was granted on June 5, 2012, and the discovery deadline was extended to

28

August 15, 2012.
1

Defendant Mason filed a motion for summary judgment on October 1, 2012. On October 3,

1
2

2012, Plaintiff filed another request for an extension of the discovery deadline.

3

On January 9, 2013, the Court issued an order vacating the prior screening order, as well as the

4

January 12, 2011 order dismissing Defendant Mason, and the July 26, 2011 Discovery and Scheduling

5

Order. The Court also denied Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s

6

request for an extension of time without prejudice.
Also on January 9, 2013, the Court issued a new screening order finding service appropriate

7
8

for Defendant Mix and Defendant Mason. Defendant Mason filed an answer on May 10, 2013.
On May 13, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Part I of the Order

9
10

requires the parties to provide initial disclosures, including names of witnesses and production of

11

documents.
On May 31, 2013, Defendants filed a Request for Reconsideration of Part I of the Discovery

12
13

and Scheduling Order. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD

14

Defendants move for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 303(c), which permits District

15
16

Judge review of a Magistrate Judge’s order. Local Rule 303(a) incorporates the “clearly erroneous” or

17

“contrary to law” standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Thus, the District Judge

18

must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R.

19

Civ. P. 72(a).
DISCUSSION

20
21
22

A.

Defendants’ General Objections
Defendants correctly argue that Part I of the Discovery and Scheduling Order requires the

23

parties to engage in disclosures similar to those required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24

26(a)(1). Defendants are also correct in that Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner, and that such actions are

25

generally exempt from initial disclosure requirements.

26

Defendants are incorrect, however, insofar as they argue that the Discovery and Scheduling

27

Order is an improper “standing order” meant to modify the initial disclosure requirements. As the

28

Court has previously explained in at least one other prisoner action where a similar Discovery and
2

1

Scheduling Order was issued, the order is a case-specific order that issued in this action “[t]o expedite

2

the fair disposition of this action and to discourage wasteful pretrial activities.” Therefore, the order is

3

proper since “even in a case excluded . . ., the court can order exchange of similar information in

4

managing the action under rule 16.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Advisory Committee Note of 2000. The

5

fact that a similar order has issued in other prisoner cases does not transform the order into a formal, or

6

informal, standing order.

7

Defendants further believe that such requirements are an undue burden on the State in prisoner

8

cases. However, the intent behind the order is to streamline the discovery process and ultimately

9

reduce the overall burden on the State, the Court and the parties. Similarly, although Defendants

10

suggest that the order deprives counsel of the exercise of professional judgment in determining how

11

much time and effort to devote to investigation, the order requires no more than would be required

12

under Rule 26(a), or in the ordinary course of investigating a complaint. The purpose of initial

13

disclosures under FRCP 26(a) is “to accelerate the exchange of basic information . . . and to eliminate

14

the paper work involved in requesting such information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Advisory

15

Committee Note of 1993 (emphasis added). Orders such as this fall well within the vested control of a

16

trial court to control its docket and to ensure efficient use of limited judicial resources.

17

Defendants also attempt to raise an issue based on the Discovery and Scheduling Order’s

18

failure to limit the disclosures to “discoverable information.” While the order may not specifically

19

state that disclosures are limited to “discoverable information,” the context of the order, as well as

20

common sense, dictate that only discoverable information need be exchanged. Indeed, the order limits

21

Defendants’ disclosures to information regarding individuals “likely to have information about

22

Defendant(s)’ claims or defenses, or who will be used to support Defendant(s)’ version of the events

23

described in the complaint.” May 13, 2013, Order at 2.

24

Finally, insofar as Defendants object to the requirement that Defendants produce materials in

25

the possession, custody or control of Defendants and CDCR, their objection fails. Defendants

26

specifically object to the definition used in Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309945 (E. D. Cal. 2007),

27

cited in the order, and contend that they are “rank and file employees of CDCR” who do not control

28

CDCR or its documents. Mot. 10. This standard, however, requires no more than production of
3

1

information for which Defendants have “the legal right to obtain” on demand. If a document does not

2

fall within the definition of Allen, it need not be produced. Certainly, Defendants will not have

3

“possession, custody or control” of all of CDCR’s documents. The order does not require Defendants

4

to produce documents that they cannot otherwise obtain in the course of their employment.

5

The above arguments are not persuasive and do not establish that the Discovery and

6

Scheduling Order, in general, is contrary to law or clearly erroneous.

7

B.

Defendants’ Case-Specific Objections

8

As applied to this action, Defendants argue that the Discovery and Scheduling Order is

9

inappropriate because it will essentially give Plaintiff, who did not serve discovery requests during the

10

13 months that discovery was previously open, a second chance at discovery.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff should not benefit from another round of unlimited discovery

11
12

under the circumstances. For this reason only, the Court will grant the motion for reconsideration and

13

vacate the May 13, 2013, Discovery and Scheduling Order. The Court will direct the Magistrate

14

Judge to issue an order allowing limited discovery by separate order.
ORDER

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16
17

1.

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED as described above;

18

2.

The May 13, 2013 Discovery and Scheduling Order is VACATED; and

19

3.

The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for the issuance of a new discovery and
scheduling order.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: July 31, 2013

25
26

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

0m8i788

27
28
4