Kinney v. Brazelton, et al.

Filing 71

ORDER Regarding Objections to Magistrate Judge's Discovery Order 62 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/19/16: Defendant's objections are HEREBY OVERRULED. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for resolution of the outstanding discovery issues. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DIJON KINNEY,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)

v.
P.D. BRAZELTON, et al.,

14

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DISCOVERY
ORDER
(ECF No. 62)

Defendants.

15
16
17

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

18

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

19

Defendant Flores on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for inadequate medical care

20

and cruel and unusual punishment. The matter is before the Court on objections to the

21

Magistrate Judge’s order requiring Defendant to submit documents for in camera review.

22

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

23

Discovery in this action closed on July 7, 2015. (ECF No. 20.) The deadline was

24

extended to July 21, 2015 for the limited purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s deposition out-

25

of-state. (ECF No. 30.)

26
27
28

1

After the expiration of the discovery cut-off, Plaintiff moved to extend the

2

discovery cut-off by ninety days. (ECF No. 33.) The motion was denied for failure to

3

show good cause. (ECF No. 35.)

4

On October 2, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.

5

37.) Plaintiff again moved to re-open discovery on January 15, 2016. (ECF No. 46.) That

6

motion also was denied for failure to show good cause. (ECF No. 51.)

7

On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a third motion to reopen discovery, citing

8

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (ECF No. 51.) Defendant filed no opposition. The

9

Magistrate Judge issued an order purporting to deny the motion as lacking in good

10

cause. (ECF No. 56.) However, “to facilitate the efficient resolution of discovery issues

11

and enable summary judgment and/or trial to proceed upon consideration of all relevant

12

evidence,” the Magistrate Judge set the matter for a telephonic discovery dispute

13

conference and ordered the parties to meet and confer and “attempt to resolve Plaintiff’s

14

requests for transcripts, videos, and photographs.” Additionally, Defendant was ordered

15

to submit the following documents for in camera review, to the extent they are in his

16

possession, custody, or subject to his control: “any and all documents in Defendant's

17

possession, custody, or subject to his control relating to the investigation of the August

18

14, 2012 incident by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and/or

19

the Office of the Inspector General.” Finally, Defendant was invited to file objections to

20

the release of these documents to Plaintiff and a draft protective order if he believed

21

such was necessary.

22

Defendant instead filed the instant objections. Plaintiff filed a response. (ECF No.

23

64.) The matter is submitted.

24

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) allows parties to file objections to

26

nondispositive orders decided by a Magistrate Judge. “The district judge in the case

27
28
2

1

must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is

2

clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.

3

Similarly, Local Rule 303(c) allows parties to seek reconsideration by a District

4

Judge of a Magistrate Judge’s pretrial rulings. Local Rule 303(c). The assigned District

5

Judge shall review all such requests for reconsideration under the "clearly erroneous or

6

contrary to law" standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Local Rule 303(f) (citing

7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).

8

III.

9

DISCUSSION
A.

Good Cause

10

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for reopening

11

discovery. The Court disagrees and finds there is good cause for reopening discovery for

12

the limited purposes articulated by the Magistrate Judge. The Court has reviewed the

13

docket and finds that Plaintiff has made repeated attempts to obtain this information.

14

These attempts began with an improper Pitchess motion on July 17, 2015. (ECF No. 32.)

15

Thereafter, the Court explained that discovery was closed and again informed Plaintiff of

16

the proper procedures for seeking discovery. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff immediately filed a

17

motion for extension of time. He has continued to file such motions. The apparent delay

18

in seeking discovery appears attributable to Plaintiff’s ignorance of the law, rather than a

19

lack of diligence. Additionally, the disputed discovery is highly relevant to Plaintiff’s

20

claims.

21
22

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge did not err in
reopening discovery for this limited purpose.

23

B.

Rule 56(d)

24

Defendant argues throughout his motion that, under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff is not

25

entitled to the discovery at issue in the Magistrate Judge’s order. However, the

26

Magistrate Judge indicated that the documents at issue may be relevant for “summary

27

judgment and/or trial.” The fact that they were not relied upon in Defendant’s summary

28
3

1

judgment motion is not indicative of whether the documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s

2

prosecution of this action.

3

Moreover, Rule 56(d) is not a substantive rule of discovery. It allows the Court to

4

stay proceedings on a motion for summary judgment to allow a party the opportunity to

5

obtain relevant evidence. While a Court may deny a Rule 56(d) stay if the requested

6

discovery is not relevant to the motion, Rule 56(d) does not set the boundaries of

7

relevant or discoverable evidence.

8

In any event, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment has been resolved in

9

Plaintiff’s favor. (ECF No. 68.) At this stage, the Court must consider only whether the

10

discovery will be relevant at trial.

11

C.

Deposition Transcript

12

Defendant argues that he is not required to provide Plaintiff with a copy of

13

Plaintiff’s deposition transcript. The Magistrate Judge did not order Defendant to do so.

14

Defendant merely was ordered to confer with Plaintiff to attempt to resolve this issue.

15

Furthermore, Plaintiff apparently acknowledged during the discovery dispute conference

16

that Defendant has no such duty. (ECF No. 61.) Defendant shows no error on the part of

17

the Magistrate Judge.

18

D.

19

Defendant argues that Plaintiff may access his own medical files and therefore

20

has access to all relevant photographs regarding his injuries. Simultaneously, however,

21

Defendant concedes that at least some of the photographs are not contained in

22

Plaintiff’s medical records. Plaintiff maintains he is unable to access these photographs

23

on his own.

24
25

Photographs

Defendant was ordered to confer with Plaintiff to attempt to resolve this issue.
Defendant shows no error on the part of the Magistrate Judge.

26
27
28
4

1

E.

2

Defendant states that Plaintiff is not entitled to video footage of the alleged

3

incident or reports of subsequent investigations because such information is confidential

4

and privileged.

Video and Investigatory Materials

5

These objections are not properly before the undersigned. The Magistrate Judge

6

ordered that the investigatory documents be presented for in camera review and invited

7

Defendant to state any objections to their being released to Plaintiff. Defendant did not

8

do so and instead filed the instant objections. The Magistrate Judge has not ruled on any

9

claims of privilege nor ordered the contested materials be release to Plaintiff. Defendant

10

is free to present these arguments to the Magistrate Judge.

11

With regard to video footage, Defendant was ordered to confer with Plaintiff to

12

attempt to resolve this issue. If Defendant wishes to argue that he cannot do so due to

13

privilege concerns, he may present this argument to the Magistrate Judge.

14

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

15

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s objections are HEREBY OVERRULED. The

16

matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for resolution of the outstanding

17

discovery issues.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5