King v. Martinez, et al.

Filing 74

ORDER DENYING 66 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel but Extending Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines for Limited Purpose of Defendant Responding to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/13/2017. Discovery Responses due within forty-five (45) days. Dispositive Motions filed by 11/30/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO KING,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

W.S. WADKINS,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00433-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL BUT EXTENDING DISCOVERY
AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES FOR
LIMITED PURPOSE OF DEFENDANT
RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
[ECF No. 66]

Plaintiff Mario King is a state prisoner and appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed August 23, 2017. Defendant

21

filed an opposition on August 30, 2017, and Plaintiff did not file a reply. Therefore, the motion is

22

deemed submitted for review without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l).

23

I.

24

DISCUSSION

25

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of

26

confinement.

27

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to

28

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ.

As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would

1

1

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 18, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &4. Further, where

2

otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or

3

infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in

4

determining whether disclosure should occur.

5

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and

6

language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of

7

Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of

8

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right of privacy

9

that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012

10

WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect discoverable

11

information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v.

12

Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012)

13

(issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the safety and

14

security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal.

15

Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information asserted to

16

risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No.

17

CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring

18

defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective order).

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v.

19

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The

20

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of

21

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d

22

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Parties may obtain discovery

23

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to

24

the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in

25

controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance

26

of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery

27

outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

28

///
2

1

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel

2

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV

3

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at

4

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis

5

v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).

6

This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the

7

motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why

8

the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack,

9

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4.

10

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these

11

procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant; therefore, to the extent possible, the

12

Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d

13

606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir.

14

2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s responses to his interrogatories and requests for

15
16

production of documents. Discovery began in this case on August 23, 2016. (ECF No. 18.) On

17

February 1, 2017, Defendant served Plaintiff with interrogatories and requests for production of

18

documents. (Declaration of A. De La Torre-Fennell (“De La Torre-Fennell Decl.”) ¶ 4.) Plaintiff

19

filed a request for an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s interrogatory request on March 6,

20

2017. (ECF No. 31.) On March 16, 2017, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition. (ECF No. 33.)

21

On March 20, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff until April 17, 2017, to serve his interrogatory

22

responses. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff served Defendant with his interrogatory responses on April 10,

23

2017. (De La Torre-Fennell Decl. ¶ 5.) On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request to extend the time

24

to respond to Defendant’s request for production of documents. (ECF No. 42.) On April 20, 2017, the

25

Court extended the time for Plaintiff to respond until May 24, 2017, and extended the deadline for

26

completion of discovery to June 14, 2017. (ECF No. 43.) The dispositive motion deadline is currently

27

set for September 18, 2017. (ECF No. 47.)

28

///
3

Defendant submits that the discovery documents were not served on him and the only

1
2

document he received was Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s first set of interrogatories on April

3

2017. (De La Torre-Fennell Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant never received Plaintiff’s interrogatory requests or

4

requests for production of documents. (Id. ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff attaches a copy of his first set of interrogatories to Defendant along with a first set of

5
6

requests for production of documents. (Mot. Ex. A, ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff submits that the

7

documents were filed with the Court. (Pl.’s Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 66.) However, the affixed stamp

8

demonstrates that the document was received in this Court on April 13, 2017, but was not filed. (ECF

9

No. 66, Ex. A.) As stated in the first information order issued March 31, 2016, “[d]iscovery requests

10

must be served directly on the attorney for the party from whom discovery is sought…., parties are not

11

to file copies of their discovery requests with the Court. Local Rules 250.1, 250.2, 250.3, 250.4.

12

Discovery documents improperly submitted to the Court may be stricken from the record.” (Order at

13

2:22-25, ECF No. 2.) In addition, as stated in the Court’s August 23, 2016, discovery and scheduling

14

order, “[d]iscovery requests and responses shall not be filed with the Court unless required by Local

15

Rules 250.2, 250.3 and 250.4.” (Order at 1:19-20, ECF No. 18.) Although Plaintiff did not adhere to

16

the procedural rules of this Court, he did timely draft and submit a first set of interrogatories and

17

request for production of documents to the Court, and in the interest of justice, the Court will extend

18

the discovery deadline for the limited purposes of directing Defendant to file a response to Plaintiff’s

19

discovery requests attached as Exhibit A to the motion to compel (ECF No. 66). No further discovery

20

may be propounded. The Court will also extend the dispositive motion deadline in light of the

21

extension of the discovery deadline. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied;

23

2.

The discovery deadline is extended for the limited purpose of Defendant responding to

24

Plaintiff’s discovery requests attached as Exhibit A to the motion to compel (ECF No. 66);
3.

25

Within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order, Defendant shall file a

26

response to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents attached as

27

Exhibit A to the motion to compel (ECF No. 66); and

28

///
4

4.

1

The dispositive motion deadline is extended to November 30, 2017.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

5

September 13, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5