Garcia, Jr. v. Tulare County Main Jail et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING 41 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/2/2018. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 1:14-cv-00476-BAM (PC) OMAR GARCIA, JR., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff, v. (ECF No. 41) TULARE COUNTY MAIN JAIL, et al, Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Omar Garcia, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was detained at the Bob Wiley 20 Detention Facility in Visalia, California. Plaintiff is now a state prisoner housed at California 21 State Prison, Los Angeles County. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 22 against: (1) Defendants O’Rafferty and Kaiois (sued as Kaious) for excessive force in violation of 23 the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) Defendant Onstott for failure to intervene in violation of the 24 Fourteenth Amendment; (3) Defendants O’Rafferty, Kaiois, Flores, Avina, Myers (sued as 25 Meyers) and Ellis for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the 26 Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) Defendants O’Rafferty, Kaiois, Flores, Avina, Myers and Ellis 27 for negligence in violation of state law. All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United 28 States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 5, 19.) 1 1 On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed with the Court a document titled “Request and Motion 2 to Compel for the Production of Discovery and Documents.” (ECF No. 41.) On February 15, 3 2018, the Court ordered Defendants to file a response to the motion. (ECF No. 43.) Defendants’ 4 response was filed on March 5, 2018. (ECF No. 44.) The time for Plaintiff to file a reply has 5 expired, and the motion is deemed submitted. 6 Though Plaintiff’s filing is characterized as a motion to compel, it appears to be a 7 discovery request for production of documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. 8 Specifically, Plaintiff requests further video footage from the time of the events at issue, as well 9 as the names and identifying information of other individuals who made contact with Plaintiff 10 during those events. The proof of service is signed and dated January 15, 2018, one day prior to 11 the close of discovery, and there is no indication that this request was served on Defendants prior 12 to that date. (ECF No. 41, p. 4.) 13 In their response, Defendants state that they previously provided Plaintiff with a compact 14 disc containing all of the videos requested, which included all available video of the alleged 15 incident in their possession. 1 Defendants further object to Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that 16 it is untimely and seeks discovery outside the scope of Rule 34. 17 Pursuant to the Court’s discovery and scheduling order, “discovery requests . . . must be 18 served sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline to permit time for a response and time to 19 prepare and file a motion to compel.” (ECF No. 35, p. 2.) Plaintiff’s motion, which is more 20 accurately characterized as a request for production of documents, was not served on Defendants 21 until one day prior to the January 16, 2018 discovery deadline. As noted by Defendants, this did 22 not permit Defendants sufficient time to serve a response prior to the discovery deadline. 23 Even if the Court broadly construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion to extend the discovery 24 deadline for the purpose of obtaining responses to this request for production of documents, 25 Plaintiff has nevertheless failed to show good cause, or any cause, which explains why he did not 26 1 27 28 Defendants state generally that they have already produced the requested videos to Plaintiff, citing in support their Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s prior Request for Production of Documents. (ECF No. 44, p. 2.) However, the Court notes that the specific dates and times of video footage requested in Plaintiff’s current motion do not correspond with the specific dates and times of video footage requested in Plaintiff’s prior Request for Production of Documents. Nevertheless, the discrepancy does not alter the Court’s ruling on this motion. 2 1 submit his discovery request within the time provided or request additional time to seek 2 discovery. 3 Plaintiff has failed to set forth good cause for his untimely discovery request, as required 4 by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, (ECF No. 5 41), is DENIED. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara April 2, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?