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)

Download PDF
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

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?