Thomas v. Lewis et al

Filing 131

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 84 Motion for an Order holding Defendant in Contempt, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/27/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JOHNNY C. THOMAS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00524-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO HOLD
DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT
(ECF No. 84)

MARK KUO,
Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff, Johnny C. Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

17

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s

18

motion for an order holding Defendant, Mark Kuo, in contempt. (ECF No. 84.)

19

In an order entered on October 3, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to reopen

20

discovery and to compel discovery. (ECF No. 72.) The Court ordered Defendant to serve his

21

responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents, dated April 30, 2018, and

22

Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents, dated May 22, 2018, along with

23

responsive documents, if any, within thirty days of entry of the Court’s order. (See id.)

24

On December 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed his motion seeking to hold Defendant in contempt

25

for failing to adequately respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, as ordered by the Court. After

26

determining that there was insufficient information in the record to determine whether Defendant

27

should be held in contempt, the Court directed Defendant to provide the Court with supplemental

28

information regarding its responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (ECF No. 96.) Defendant

1

1

provided some supplemental information but did not fully comply with the Court order requiring

2

supplemental information. (ECF Nos. 99, 105.) The Court therefore issued a second order

3

requiring Defendant to provide supplemental information. (ECF No. 105.) After Defendant

4

responded to this second order, the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file a reply

5

regarding Defendant’s supplemental information. (ECF No. 110).

6

Plaintiff filed his reply on July 22, 2019. (ECF No. 114.) In his reply, Plaintiff contended

7

that there was additional information responsive to the discovery requests that Defendant had not

8

yet provided to him. (ECF No. 114.) The Court subsequently held a hearing at which the parties

9

were provided the opportunity to provide the Court with argument regarding Plaintiff’s motion

10
11

for contempt. (ECF No. 124.)
As discussed during the contempt hearing, Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with

12

documents responsive to the discovery requests at issue until well after (six weeks after) the

13

deadline set by the Court in the order compelling Defendant to provide the discovery, and only

14

after Plaintiff filed the motion for contempt. In addition, during the hearing, Plaintiff indicated his

15

continuing belief that there were documents responsive to his discovery requests that Defendant

16

still had not disclosed. The Court therefore directed Defendant “to conduct an additional search

17

for any dental records, including Dental Authorization Review Committee records, regarding

18

Plaintiff that would have been available on a computer at the Dual Vocational Institution that

19

discuss the need or reason for further dental treatment for Plaintiff following the dental surgery at

20

issue in this case.” (ECF No. 124.) The Court took the motion for contempt under advisement

21

pending the filing by Defendant of a notice that he had complied with the Court’s order requiring

22

the additional search. (Id.) Defendant has now filed his notice of compliance. (ECF No. 128.)

23

As discussed during the contempt hearing, the Court is concerned with the manner in

24

which Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and the timing of those responses—

25

six weeks after the deadline imposed by the Court and after Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to

26

hold Defendant in contempt. Although Defendant provided an explanation for the timing of his

27

responses, the timing of the responses combined with what has appeared to be resistance by

28

Defendant to provide Plaintiff with certain discovery raises concern. However, for the reasons

2

1

stated on the record during the contempt hearing, and based on the supplemental search and

2

information provided by Defendant, the Court finds that Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated

3

that he has provided the available information responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and that

4

the delay was not due to any bad faith.

5

Thus, for the reasons discussed in this order and on the record,

6

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an order holding Defendant in contempt

7

(ECF No. 84) is DENIED.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 27, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3