Caesar v. Beard, et al.

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING IN PART 69 Motion for Reconsideration ; The remaining outstanding discovery matters discussed above are referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/9/18. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DANNY CAESAR,

11
12
13
14

No. 1:13-cv-01726-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
LOPEZ, et al.,

(Doc. No. 69)
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Danny Caesar is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on plaintiff’s second

18

amended complaint against defendants Patel, Lopez, and Nanditha for deliberate indifference to

19

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Patel for

20

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The claims arise out of events occurring at Kern

21

Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) in late 2012 and early 2013.

22

Currently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of an April 24, 2018

23

order issued by the assigned magistrate judge, denying his motion to compel. (Doc. No. 69.)

24

Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on June 5, 2018 (Doc. No.

25

71), and plaintiff filed a reply on June 18, 2018 (Doc. No. 72). Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), the

26

motion is deemed submitted without oral argument.

27
28

Following a meet and confer and the submission of a statement regarding plaintiff’s
motion to compel, the assigned magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 68.) In
1

1

large part, the magistrate judge determined that the parties had resolved most of the dispute

2

themselves. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that order, and moves to compel responses to

3

his First Request for Inspection, and to six of the ten requests made in his First Set of

4

Interrogatories, each made to the California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”). Plaintiff also

5

seeks the imposition of monetary sanctions if his motion is granted. The court addresses these

6

issues in turn.
Plaintiff’s First Request for Inspections requests the production of photographs of certain

7
8

locations at KVSP, including the locations of the pill-call line in Buildings A-2 and A-8, a cell

9

where he allegedly slipped, and a picture of a shower. (Doc. No. 69 at 27.) Defendants objected

10

that no responsive photographs of these areas exist, and that they are not required to create

11

documents in response to a discovery request.

12

The assigned magistrate judge denied the motion to compel with respect to this discovery

13

request by plaintiff. (Doc. No. 68 at 2.) The magistrate judge further advised defendants that if

14

any responsive documents or photographs were created, such as for use at trial, they must be

15

produced to plaintiff for inspection under the continuing duty to supplement or correct disclosures

16

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1). (Id.)

17

Defense counsel received an amended discovery request from plaintiff in a letter dated

18

May 28, 2018, asserting that rather than photographs, plaintiff would accept floorplans. (Doc.

19

No. 71 at 25.) In their opposition to the motion for reconsideration, defendants assert that they

20

will determine if any schematics exist, and if they do exist and are not confidential, will produce

21

them to plaintiff. (Id. at 6.) Defense counsel indicated they would advise plaintiff within ten

22

days, or by June 15, 2018, if floorplans of the areas in question are unavailable.1 (Id.)

23

Based on the foregoing, it appears that the parties are still working at resolving this

24

discovery dispute, and that court intervention at this time is not appropriate or required. Informal

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s reply in support of his motion for reconsideration repeats his assertion that floorplans
will suffice in lieu of photographs, thus suggesting that plaintiff had not yet received
communication from defense counsel regarding the availability of floorplans. Plaintiff’s reply,
however, is dated June 13, 2018—before the June 15, 2018 deadline by which defense counsel
indicated they would respond.
2
1

1

resolution of these discovery disputes between the parties is highly encouraged. Therefore,

2

plaintiff’s motion to reconsider this issue will be denied without prejudice.

3

Regarding the disputed interrogatory requests, as noted above, those interrogatories were

4

first propounded on CDCR. CDCR is not a party to this action. (See Doc. Nos. 49, 66.) Earlier

5

in this case, defense counsel advised plaintiff that CDCR would not respond to the First Set of

6

Interrogatories. (Doc. No. 67 at 2.) Instead, as a compromise, defense counsel requested that

7

plaintiff propound the interrogatories to defendant Lopez, who would answer them, to the extent

8

not objectionable. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff agreed and complied with that request. (Id. at 4.)

9

Due to the time spent working out that dispute, responses to these interrogatories were

10

only served on plaintiff on May 25, 2018, after the assigned magistrate judge issued the April 24,

11

2018 order that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of here. (See Doc. No. 71, Ex. A.) Therefore, the

12

assigned magistrate judge did not issue any ruling on the matter. The undersigned declines to

13

consider this discovery dispute in the first instance, and instead refers it to the assigned magistrate

14

judge for further consideration and only if appropriate and necessary.

15

Plaintiff also raises a request in his reply brief for a modification of the discovery and

16

scheduling order. The undersigned refers that matter to the assigned magistrate judge for

17

consideration as well. Because plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied in part and

18

referred in part back to the assigned magistrate judge in light of ongoing discovery developments,

19

no monetary sanctions will be imposed.

20

For these reasons,
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed on May 7, 2018 (Doc. No. 69), is

21
22

denied in part, as explained above; and

23

2. The remaining outstanding discovery matters discussed above are referred to the

24

assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 9, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
3