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)

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