Villery v. Jones et al
Filing
105
ORDER GRANTING 82 Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration of the Assigned Magistrate Judge's March 18, 2020 Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/28/2020. (Rivera, O)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JARED M. VILLERY,
12
13
14
15
No. 1:15-cv-01360-DAD-JDP (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MARCH 18, 2020 ORDER
v.
JAY JONES, et al.,
Defendants.
(Doc. No. 82)
16
17
Plaintiff Jared M. Villery is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
18
this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United
19
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s request for limited reconsideration of the
21
assigned magistrate judge’s order of March 18, 2020 ruling on plaintiff’s motion to compel
22
discovery responses from defendants. (Doc. No. 82.) For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s
23
request for reconsideration will be granted.
24
BACKGROUND
25
On May 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses from defendants.
26
(Doc. No. 57.) On March 18, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order granting in part
27
and denying in part plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Doc. No. 81.) On April 6, 2020, plaintiff filed
28
the pending request for limited reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s March 18, 2020 order.
1
1
(Doc. No. 82.) Therein, plaintiff argues that: (1) “[t]he Court’s conclusion that Defendants Jones
2
and Escarcega do not have constructive possession, custody, or control over specific [California
3
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)] Internal Affairs records is clearly
4
erroneous and contrary to law,” and (2) “[t]he Court clearly erred when finding that Defendant
5
Jones’s response to Request for Production No. 6 was adequate.” (Id. at 5.)1
Pursuant to Local Rule 303(d), defendants’ opposition, if any, needed to be filed by April
6
7
14, 2020. However, defendants have not filed an opposition to the pending request for
8
reconsideration and the time in which to do so has long since passed.
9
LEGAL STANDARD
10
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that non-dispositive pretrial matters may
11
be referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned district judge.
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also L.R. 303(c). The district judge shall modify or set aside any part of
13
the magistrate judge’s order which is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” L.R.
14
303(f); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Discovery motions are non-dispositive pretrial
15
motions which come within the scope of Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Thus, the
16
orders of a magistrate judge addressing discovery motions are subject to the “clearly erroneous or
17
contrary to law” standard of review. Rockwell Int’l, Inc. v. Pos-A-Traction Indus., Inc., 712 F.2d
18
1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1983). The magistrate judge’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear
19
error, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether they are contrary to law. United
20
States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds by
21
Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991). “A magistrate judge’s decision is
22
‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect legal standard, fails to consider an element of [the]
23
applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of
24
procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS, 2014 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D.
25
1
26
27
28
In the pending request for reconsideration, plaintiff also argues that “[t]he Court committed
clear error when failing to reopen discovery and reset the Discovery cut-off deadline,” as
previously requested by plaintiff. (Doc. No. 82 at 5; see also Doc. No. 58.) That basis for
reconsideration, however, has been rendered moot by the magistrate judge’s September 1, 2020
order reopening discovery for ninety days and continuing the dispositive motion deadline for an
additional sixty days thereafter. (Doc. No. 98.)
2
1
Cal. July 18, 2014). “[R]eview under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential,
2
requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe &
3
Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993) (internal
4
quotation marks omitted); see also Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th
5
Cir. 1997).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DISCUSSION
In denying plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants Escarcega and Jones to produce the
documents requested by him, the magistrate judge ruled that:
Rule 34(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows parties
to serve discovery request for certain relevant items “in the
responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” “[F]ederal
courts have consistently held that documents are deemed to be within
the ‘possession, custody or control’ for purposes of Rule 34 if the
party has actual possession, custody or control, or has the legal right
to obtain the documents on demand.” In re Bankers Tr. Co., 61 F.3d
465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. International
Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th
Cir.[]1989) (“Control is defined as the legal right to obtain
documents upon demand.”). Here, plaintiff has failed to show that
defendants have the legal right to obtain more documents. The court
finds that defendants’ responses are adequate and denies plaintiff’s
request for more.
(Doc. No. 81 at 4.)
Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erroneously concluded that defendant Escarcega
19
and Jones did not have possession, custody, or control over CDCR Internal Affairs documents
20
that he had requested from them in his Requests for Production Number 18 and 24, respectively.
21
(Doc. No. 82 at 4). The magistrate judge did not address plaintiff’s contention that defendants
22
Escarcega and Jones have constructive control of the requested documents by virtue of their
23
employment with CDCR and the fact that they are both represented in this action by the
24
California Attorney General’s Office. (Doc. No. 57 at 31; Doc. No. 82 at 7–8). Indeed, judges of
25
this district have often compelled defendants to produce CDCR documents that they have
26
constructive control over. See Mundo v. Carmona, No. 1:16-cv-01687-AWI-MJS, 2018 WL
27
1083889, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2018) (noting that in the court’s experience “individual
28
defendants who are employed by CDCR and/or the Attorney General can generally obtain
3
1
documents . . . from CDCR by requesting them,” and ruling that defendant had control over
2
requested documents and had to produce them because he was employed by non-party CDCR and
3
was represented by the Attorney General’s Office); Mitchell v. Adams, No. 2:06-cv-02321-GGH,
4
2009 WL 674348, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2009) (requiring documents to be produced because,
5
“[w]hile the defendant warden in his personal or individual capacity may not have custody of the
6
documents at issue, because ‘control’ is determined by authority, he has constructive possession,
7
custody or control”). Although motions to compel discovery from CDCR employees who have
8
contended that they do not have constructive possession over the requested documents and have
9
provide factual support for that contention have been denied, see Woodall v. California, No. 1:08-
10
cv-01948-LJO-DLB, 2011 WL 240717, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2011), here defendants
11
Escarcega and Jones have not argued that they do not have ready access to the requested
12
documents or that they cannot request them from CDCR.2
13
14
Accordingly, defendants Escarcega and Jones will be ordered to produce the documents
requested by plaintiff in his Requests for Production Number 18 and 24, respectively.
Next, the court addresses plaintiff’s contention that the magistrate judge erred in finding
15
16
that defendant Jones adequately responded to plaintiff’s Request for Production Number 6, which
17
sought identification and production from each defendant of any and all staff complaints that have
18
ever been filed by other inmates against them while employed with CDCR. (Doc. Nos. 57 at 25;
19
82 at 11.) Defendant Jones responded and produced lists of staff complaints filed against him and
20
some of the other defendants in this action with redactions. (See Doc. No. 71 at 20–24.) Plaintiff
21
contends that “it is impossible for [him] to glean anything from a list of Complaints, which
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The undersigned acknowledges that after the magistrate judge reopened discovery in this case,
see footnote 1 above, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of
subpoenas duces tecum on the warden of the facility at issue in this action, the chief of the office
of CDCR’s Internal Affairs Office, and the inspector general for the State of California, seeking
what appear to be the same documents that he is seeking from defendants Escarcega and Jones.
(Compare Doc. Nos. 100, 101, with Doc. No. 57 at 30.) Even if the documents plaintiff is
seeking from non-parties overlap with those he is seeking from defendants Escarcega and Jones,
the fact that plaintiff may be able to obtain copies of the requested documents from those nonparties does not absolve defendants of their obligations to comply with plaintiff’s appropriate
discovery requests.
4
1
provides no information whatsoever pertaining to the substance of the complaints, or the basis for
2
why they were filed . . ..” (Doc. No. 82 at 11.)
The magistrate judge’s order as to this issue provided no analysis as to why producing a
3
4
list of complaints filed by inmates against some of the defendants is an “adequate” response to
5
plaintiff’s request for production of copies of the complaints themselves. Because plaintiff
6
alleges that defendants engaged “in a pattern of repeated violations of his right to be free from
7
retaliation, occurring as retribution for [his] pursuit of constitutionally protected activities” (Doc.
8
No 16 at 2), the substance of any complaints by other inmates alleging similar conduct by some
9
or all of the defendants is relevant to plaintiff’s claims at issue in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
10
26 (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
11
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”) (emphasis added). Indeed,
12
courts have recognized that “[c]omplaints against officers . . . may show, among other things, the
13
character or proclivity of such officers toward violent behavior or possible bias.” Taylor v. Los
14
Angeles Police Dep’t, No. 99-cv-0383-RT(RCX), 1999 WL 33101661, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10,
15
1999). Moreover, “such documents would bear upon [each defendants’] . . . previous alleged
16
misconduct and/or responses to such alleged misconduct.” Ramirez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 231
17
F.R.D. 407, 412 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Thus, the magistrate judge’s ruling that defendant Jones’
18
production of a list of complaints that failed to describe the substance of those complaints was an
19
adequate response to plaintiff’s Request for Production Number 6—is clearly erroneous and
20
contrary to law.
21
22
Accordingly, defendants will also be ordered to produce documents responsive to
plaintiff’s Request for Production Number 6.
23
CONCLUSION
24
For the reasons set forth above,
25
1.
26
March 18, 2020 order is granted; and
27
28
Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 82) of the magistrate judge’s
2.
Within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of this order:
/////
5
1
a.
2
requested by plaintiff in Request for Production No. 18;
3
b.
4
c.
6
8
9
Defendant Jones shall respond to and produce the documents requested by
plaintiff in Request for Production No. 24; and
5
7
Defendant Escarcega shall respond to and produce the documents
Defendants shall respond to and produce the documents requested by
plaintiff in Request for Production No. 6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 28, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?