Goolsby v. Cate et al

Filing 88

ORDER FOLLOWING Discovery and Status Hearing Held on July 19, 2016 80 ; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 81 Motion to Supplement his Opposition to Defendants' Motion; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 83 Motion for Protective Order and/or Postponement of Deposition; ORDER for Defendants to Serve Discovery Responses pursuant to this Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 07/29/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS GOOLSBY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY
AND STATUS HEARING HELD ON
JULY 19, 2016
(Resolves ECF No. 80.)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT HIS
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION
(ECF No. 81.)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND/OR POSTPONEMENT
OF DEPOSITION
(ECF No. 83.)

18
19
20

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO
SERVE DISCOVERY RESPONSES
PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER

21
22

Settlement Conference:
Monday, August 1, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 10 (EPG)

23
24
25

1:13-cv-00119-DAD-EPG-PC

I.

BACKGROUND

26

Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

27

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on January 25, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)

28

The case now proceeds with the Second Amended Complaint filed on June 6, 2014, on
1

1

Plaintiff=s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Warden Kimberly Holland, Warden

2

Michael Stainer, and Captain J. Lundy, for denial of adequate outdoor exercise time; and

3

defendants Captain J. Lundy, Sergeant S. Foster, Plumlee (Maintenance Supervisor), Warden

4

Kimberly Holland, Correctional Officer Jordon, and Correctional Officer Uribe, for deliberate

5

indifference to unsanitary and unsafe conditions.1 (ECF No. 34.) The events at issue allegedly

6

occurred at the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California, during a

7

thirteen-month period while Plaintiff was incarcerated there in segregated housing.

8

This case is now in the discovery phase, pursuant to the Court’s amended discovery and

9

scheduling order filed on December 8, 2015. (ECF No. 64.) The deadline for completion of

10

discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, is August 8, 2016, and the deadline for

11

filing pretrial dispositive motions is October 17, 2016. (Id.) This case is scheduled for a

12

settlement conference before the undersigned on August 1, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

13

II.

STATUS CONFERENCE

14

On July 19, 2016 at 10:30 a.m., a telephonic status conference was held before

15

Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf, and

16

California Deputy Attorney General R. Lawrence Bragg appeared telephonically on behalf of

17

Defendants.

18

discovery disputes, filed on June 30, 2016 (ECF No. 80); Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his

19

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to declare Plaintiff a vexatious

20

litigant, filed on July 5, 2016 (ECF No. 81); and Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and/or

21

postponement of deposition, filed on July 15, 2016 (ECF No. 83).

22

A.

23

Pending before the Court were Plaintiff’s request for a hearing to resolve

Discovery
1.

Defendants

Defendants reported that they took Plaintiff’s deposition on July 18, 2016 and are ready

24
25

for the settlement conference.

26

///

27
28

1

On March 24, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this action, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983. (ECF No. 36.)
2

1

2.

Plaintiff

2

Plaintiff reported that he served discovery requests in May 2016, which were answered

3

by Defendants in June 2016. Plaintiff also served additional requests, which are pending.

4

Plaintiff raised the following discovery issues:

5

a.

Motion for Protective Order

6

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order and/or postponement of

7

his deposition scheduled for July 18, 2016. (ECF No. 83.) At the July 19, 2016 hearing,

8

Defendants reported that they had taken Plaintiff’s deposition on July 18, 2016. Because the

9

deposition was taken, Plaintiff’s motion is moot.

10

b.

Memorandum

11

On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of discovery disputes, in which he asserts that

12

that Defendants “redacted a large portion of Operational procedure 111 and Memorandum

13

dated January 8, 2010, authored by K. Holland, citing confidential information.” (ECF No. 80

14

at 2.) At the hearing, Plaintiff requested an unredacted version of the Memo.

15

Plaintiff had requested documentation of the number of exercise modules in the IEM

16

Yard (exercise yard) at CCI.

17

concerns the IEM Yard, because the number of exercise modules was given in the Memo, but

18

they redacted the remainder of the Memo because it was not responsive to Plaintiff’s request.

19

Defendants also argued that the Memo is not relevant, because it concerns a time period

20

different from the events at issue in this case.

Defendants asserted that they produced the Memo, which

21

The Court ordered that by July 26, 2016, Defendants are required to produce any part

22

of the Memo which concerns inadequate exercise time, as specified in the Court’s December

23

16, 2015 order. (ECF No. 72 at 2-3.) Redactions may be proper, i.e., if the Memo concerns

24

issues wholly unrelated to exercise time. However, the fact that the Memo pre-dated events is

25

not a basis to redact information regarding exercise. By July 26, 2016, Defendants are required

26

to either make a supplemental production of documents to Plaintiff, or submit a brief report that

27

no production was made.

28

///
3

1

c.

Request for Admissions

2

In his notice of discovery disputes, Plaintiff asserted that defendant Stainer failed to

3

admit, in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions No. 5, that the amount of exercise

4

“offered to inmates like plaintiff on IEM/SMY yard status decreased after the conversion of 4A

5

units 1-4 from GP to SHU.” (ECF No. 80 at 3.) At the hearing, Defendant objected on the

6

ground that the issue is not whether the Plaintiff’s exercise time was increased or decreased, but

7

rather how much exercise Plaintiff was allowed. Plaintiff argued that the change was relevant

8

to the issue of deliberate indifference. The Court ordered Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s

9

Request for Admissions No. 5, no later than August 5, 2016.

10

Plaintiff also asserted that defendant Holland failed to admit that Plaintiff was not

11

provided exercise consistent with Title 15 requirement of one hour per day, five days per week.

12

Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s request is overburdensome because it would require

13

Defendant to discover how much exercise time was provided to Plaintiff day-by-day. The

14

Court altered Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions No. 2 and ordered Defendants to admit, no

15

later than August 5, 2016, that during the time Plaintiff was at CCI, he never was provided

16

one hour per day, five days per week for exercise. If Defendants denies this request, they shall

17

provide a basis for that denial.

18

d.

Work Orders

19

Plaintiff reported that the work orders produced by Defendants do not indicate when the

20

ceiling was fixed. The Court ordered that by July 26, 2016, Defendants must provide Plaintiff

21

with all documents concerning the work orders for the IEM yard for the relevant time period,

22

including any resolution of those work orders.

23

e.

Request to Inspect Prison

24

On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of discovery dispute concerning his request to

25

Defendants to make arrangements for him to “inspect CCI state prison and to photograph and

26

video record the cell and section roof leaks, as well as video record plaintiff pouring food

27

coloring in one of the toilets that backflow and flushing it, to show the backflow to the other

28
4

1

toilet, in all the toilets at issue.” (ECF No. 80 at 3.) Plaintiff also requests to photograph the

2

exercise yard.

3

Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s request, on the ground that any inspection by Plaintiff

4

at this juncture would not be relevant to the time period of Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendants

5

also argued that Plaintiff’s request should not be granted because Plaintiff expects to make the

6

inspection himself, and because he is not currently housed at CCI and would need to be

7

transported there. Defendants also argued that Plaintiff’s damages are minimal because: (1)

8

the toilet did not actually overflow, Plaintiff merely needed to flush the toilet to resolve the

9

problem, and Plaintiff did not suffer from skin infections; (2) Plaintiff did not require medical

10

attention for the asthma he suffered from breathing mold; and (3) after Plaintiff slipped and fell

11

on the wet floor, he only required an ice pack and pain medication, and has no resulting back

12

problems. Defense counsel further indicated he expected an inspection would likely reveal a

13

continuing problem with backflow of toilets because the prison has been denied funding to fix

14

the issue.

15

The Court took the issue of inspection under advisement and invited Defendant to

16

respond by August 5, 2016, to a Request for Admission that CCI continues to experience

17

problems with backflow of toilets. Although Defendant contests the relevance of this request,

18

especially as it concerns cells other than the Plaintiff’s, the Court ruled that the presence of a

19

continuing issue at CCI was sufficiently relevant for discovery, especially regarding deliberate

20

indifference, and that ordinarily a Plaintiff would be entitled to inspect the premises as part of

21

discovery. If Defendants fail to adequately respond to this request, the Court will take that into

22

consideration in ruling on Plaintiff’s request for an inspection.

23

f.

Request to Take Depositions

24

In Plaintiff’s notice of discovery disputes (ECF No. 80), he asserts that Defendants

25

objected to his notice of depositions. Plaintiff seeks to take Defendants’ depositions at Kern

26

Valley State Prison, “using the prison’s video equipment in lieu of a stenographer due to cost.”

27

(Id. at 2.) At the hearing, the Court directed Plaintiff to Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil

28

Procedure, which requires the presence of an officer authorized to take oaths, and Rule 30
5

1

which requires that a transcript be made of the deposition proceedings. Plaintiff was advised

2

by the Court that he must show that he is able to comply with these requirements and pay the

3

required costs before his request to take depositions will be considered.

4

B.

5

At the hearing, the Court discussed Defendants’ pending motion for summary

6

judgment, in which Defendants argue that Plaintiff is barred from bringing state law claims

7

because he waited too long after the state denied his claims to file his lawsuit. Plaintiff asserts

8

that he waited so long because he was still exhausting his prison appeal.

Motion for Summary Judgment

9

The Court asked defense counsel if Defendants would have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s

10

claims for failure to exhaust if Plaintiff had filed his complaint while his appeal of the

11

cancellation of his grievance was pending, even if the six-month period for filing after

12

Government Claims had given permission were set to expire. Defense counsel said such a

13

complaint would be subject to dismissal because they were separate requirements.

14
15

The Court stated that findings and recommendations addressing the motion will be
issued before the August 1, 2016 settlement conference.

16

C.

17

On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his opposition to Defendants’

18

motion for summary judgment and to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 81.) At

19

the hearing, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his opposition, with evidence of

20

the disposition of Plaintiff’s other case 1:11-cv-01773-LJO-DLB, Goosby v. Gentry, which

21

Plaintiff submitted to the Court on July 5, 2016. (ECF No. 81.) Defendants may file a reply to

22

the supplemented opposition on or before July 25, 2016.

Motion to Supplement Opposition

23

D.

24

Plaintiff requested an extension of the deadline to complete discovery. The Court

25

denied the request and will not allow extra time beyond the August 8, 2016 discovery deadline

26

for the filing of motions to compel. That said, Defendants need to respond to outstanding

27

requests notwithstanding the discovery deadline.

28

///

Request for Extension of Discovery Deadline

6

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his opposition to Defendants’ motion for

4

summary judgment and to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, filed on July 5,

5

2016, is GRANTED, and Defendants may file a reply to the supplemented

6

opposition on or before July 25, 2016;

7

2.

8
9

on July 15, 2016, is DENIED as moot.
3.

10
11

Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order and/or postponement of deposition, filed

Defendants are ordered to serve discovery responses as instructed by this order;
and

4.

12

A Settlement Conference is scheduled for August 1, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., before
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 29, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7