Rangel v. Tilton et al

Filing 85

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Additional Discovery (ECF No. 74 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/31/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEONARDO JOSEPH RANGEL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
D. LATRAILLE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01790-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 74)

17
18

I.

19

Plaintiff Leonardo Joseph Rangel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

Introduction

20

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

21

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed January 9, 2012, against Defendant LaTraille and Taber1 for

22

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment

23

and assault and battery under state law. (ECF No. 17.)

24

On June 7, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 56.) On July

25

19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for additional discovery pursuant to Local Rule 260(b). (ECF No.

26
27
28

1

Defendants were erroneously sued as “D. Latraille” and “J. Tabor” in the first amended complaint.

1

1

74.) Defendants did not respond to the motion. Thereafter, on August 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed his

2

opposition to the motion for summary. (ECF No. 76.)

3

The motion for additional discovery is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

4

II.

5

Plaintiff requests additional discovery pursuant to Local Rule 260(b). In relevant part, Local

6
7
8
9

Motion for Discovery

Rule 260(b) provides as follows:
If a need for discovery is asserted as a basis for denial of the motion [for summary
judgment], the party opposing the motion shall provide a specification of the particular
facts on which discovery is to be had or the issues on which discovery is necessary.
Local Rule 260(b).

10

Relying on Rule 260(b), Plaintiff requests the following documents: (1) the complete incident

11

review and report of March 15-16, 2008, Log # COR-046-08-03-0126; (2) viewed DVD (portion) 7-5-

12

2013; (3) all photographs of Plaintiff maintained by the Office of Correctional Safety (OCS) known as

13

Q-2 series; (4) Plaintiff’s CDCR 114-A1, including, but not limited to all entries from October 23,

14

2007 to July 2008; and (5) Plaintiff’s 114-A, including but not limited to all entries between October

15

23, 2007 to July 2008. (ECF No. 74, pp. 1-2.)

16

Contrary to the directive of Local Rule 260(b), Plaintiff does not specify why the requested

17

discovery is necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment or the particular facts expected to

18

be gained from the proposed discovery. This alone provides a sufficient basis to deny his request.

19

See, e.g., Solis v. McKesson, 2010 WL 3504807, *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2010) (plaintiff failed to state

20

any specific facts to be learned through more discovery and summary judgment was proper).

21

Nevertheless, the Court considers the particular requests at issue.

22

1.

Complete Incident Review and Report of March 15-16, 2008

23

Plaintiff does not explain the need for the complete incident report, nor does he indicate which

24

portions were not provided. It appears that Defendants served Plaintiff with those portions of the

25

report relied upon in their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 57-1.) Plaintiff has filed his

26

opposition to the motion for summary judgment, which included an opposition to Defendants’

27

undisputed facts. (ECF No. 76, pp. 26-44.) There is no indication that further discovery of this report

28

is necessary.
2

1

2.

Viewed DVD

2

Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to request a copy of the DVD containing his

3

extraction. (ECF No. 74, p. 1.) Defendants filed and served a copy of the DVD with their motion for

4

summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 57, 59.) Plaintiff also was afforded the opportunity to view the DVD.

5

There is no indication that further discovery of the DVD is warranted. Plaintiff included his

6

contentions regarding the DVD evidence in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF

7

No. 76.)

8
9
10

3.

All Photographs of Plaintiff maintained by the Office of Correctional Safety (OCS)

known as Q-2 series
On June 27, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to provide

11

photographs maintained by OCS because neither Defendants nor defense counsel had access to such

12

documents. (ECF No. 68.) Plaintiff did not seek the issuance of a subpoena to obtain records in the

13

possession of the OCS, a non-party to this action. The Court will not now order the production of

14

these photographs.

15
16
17
18
19

4. Plaintiff’s CDCR 114-A1, including, but not limited to all entries from Oct. 23, 2007 to July
2008; and
5. Plaintiff’s 114-A, including but not limited to all entries therein between Oct. 23, 2007 to
July 2008
On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel related to his requests for his CDCR

20

114-A and 114-A1 from October 23, 2007 the present. On June 27, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

21

motion to compel production of these documents. In relevant part, the Court ruled as follows:

22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff’s requests for his CDCR 114-A and 114-A1 from October 23, 2007 are
overbroad. Further, Plaintiff has made no showing that entries or documents outside the
24-hour period at issue are relevant to the events at issue in this action. The court
therefore concludes that Defendants properly objected to requests for production numbers
5 and 6, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests numbers 5 and 6
are DENIED. However, to the extent that Plaintiff has been unable to access his c-file in
accordance with institutional policy, defense counsel shall arrange for Plaintiff to view
the non-confidential portion of his c-file and obtain copies of the CDCR 114-A and 114A1 entries (or documents) relevant to this action within twenty-one (21) days from the
date of this order. This order in no way alters institutional policies or procedures.

28
3

1

(ECF No. 68, p. 4.) On March 24, 2014, Defendants confirmed that Plaintiff reviewed his c-file on

2

July 15, 2013, and received responsive documents. (ECF No. 83.) There is no indication that further

3

action or discovery is required.

4

III.

Conclusion and Order

5

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for additional discovery, filed on July 19,

6

2013, is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 31, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4