Williams v. Bell et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING 81 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/20/19. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. BELL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

Case No. 1:16-cv-01584-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
[ECF No. 81]

Plaintiff John Wesley Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed “Objections to the Magistrate Judge Ruling on Discovery
Matters.” (ECF No. 81.)

21

I.

22

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

23
24
25
26
27
28

This action is proceeding against Defendants Bell, Harris, Fisher and Douglas for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On March 28, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 35.) On March
29, 2018, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 36.)
On November 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his first set of
written discovery requests. (ECF No. 56.)
1

1

On December 27, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to

2

compel. The Court directed Defendants to produce responsive documents to Request for Production

3

Number One for in camera review. (ECF No. 70.) In this same order, the Court also extended the

4

discovery deadline to February 11, 2019, and the dispositive motion deadline to April 12, 2019. (Id.)

5

On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel. (ECF No. 71.) Defendants

6
7

filed an opposition on February 20, 2019, and Plaintiff did not file a reply.
On March 5, 2019, the Court issued an order following in camera review and ordered that

8

Defendants provide Plaintiff with the documentation related to appeal log number 602 HC COR-SC-

9

16002225, and ordered that Plaintiff is prohibited from sharing the documentation and he must return

10
11
12
13

the documents to Defendants’ counsel at the conclusion of the case. (ECF No. 78.)
On March 22, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on January 30, 2019.
(ECF No. 80.)
As previously stated, on April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed “Objections to the Magistrate Judge

14

Ruling on Discovery Matters.” (ECF No. 81.) Defendants filed a response on May 3, 2019. (ECF

15

No. 86.) Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time to do so has expired. Local Rule 230(l).

16

II.

17

DISCUSSION

18

Reconsideration motions are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

19

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.

20

Cir. 1987). A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature

21

to induce the court to reverse a prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

22

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986).

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that nondispositive pretrial matters may be

24

referred to and decided by a magistrate judge, subject to review by the assigned district judge. See

25

also Local Rule 303(c). The district judge shall modify or set aside any part of the magistrate judge’s

26

order which is “found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 303(f); see also 28

27

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Discovery motions are nondispostive pretrial motions which fall under Rule

28

72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and the orders resolving such motions are subject to the “clearly
2

1

erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review. Rockwell Inter., Inc. v. Pos-A-Traction Indus., Inc.,

2

712 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1983).

3

The magistrate judge’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error and the legal

4

conclusions are reviewed to determine if they are contrary to the law. United States v. McConney,

5

728 F.2d 1195, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds in Estate of Merchant v. CIR, 947

6

F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991). “A magistrate judge’s decision is ‘contrary to law’ if it applies an incorrect

7

legal standard, fails to consider an element of applicable standard, or fails to apply or misapplies

8

relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Martin v. Loadholt, No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS,

9

2014 WL 3563312, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2014) (citing Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup’rs,

10

284 F.R.D. 452, 459 (D. Ariz. 2012)). A magistrate judge’s factual findings are “clearly erroneous”

11

when the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

12

Security Farms v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 1997).

13

In his objections, Plaintiff contends, among other things, that Defendants have not provided the

14

documentation ordered after in camera review by the Court. Plaintiff further objects to the Court’s

15

March 22, 2019, order denying his second motion to compel. Plaintiff specifically objects to the

16

rulings on Defendant Bell’s responses to interrogatories, set two, numbers 1, 2 and 7, Defendant

17

Harris’s response to interrogatory, set two, number 4, and Defendant Fischer’s responses

18

interrogatories, set three, numbers 1 through 5. Plaintiff contends that the undersigned’s rulings are

19

“erroneous and contrary to facts” because he was “under the Defendants’ care from September 2016,

20

until January 2017, and despite having filed this action on October 21, 2016, the violations and

21

deprivations claims therein were ongoing.” (Mot. 3, ECF No. 81.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s

22

objections to the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s second motion to compel should be overruled.

23

First, Defendants’ counsel, Deputy Attorney General Janet Chen, declares under penalty of

24

perjury, that Defendants timely served Plaintiff with the document, and Plaintiff received it. (Chen

25

Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Indeed, Defendants’ counsel attaches a copy of a letter from Plaintiff to counsel in

26

which Plaintiff indicates that he received the document on April 5, 2019. (Chen Decl. Ex. B.)

27

Accordingly, there is no merit to Plaintiff’s claim that he did not receive the document as ordered by

28

the Court.
3

1

Second, with regard to Defendants Bell, Harris and Fischer and contrary to Plaintiff’s

2

contention, events that took Plaintiff after the filing of complaint are not subject to liability in this

3

action. Although Plaintiff classifies the events as “ongoing,” in responding to Plaintiff’s

4

interrogatories Defendants reasonably interpreted “the times the deprivations are claim in this

5

lawsuit,” to mean the period from September 15, 2016 (the approximate date Plaintiff arrived at

6

California State Prison-Corcoran) to October 21, 2016 (the date Plaintiff filed the complaint in this

7

action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

8
9

Third, with regard to Defendant Fischer’s response to Interrogatory, Set Three, Number 1,
Plaintiff contends that his request “was specific to the IDTT’s function and purpose in obligations to

10

develope [sic] and maintaining [sic] inmate/patients (I/P, including Plaintiff) treatment plans and

11

goals.” (Mot. at 4.) Interrogatory Number 1, Set Three, asked Defendant Fischer to: “Please state the

12

overall purpose of IDTT functions with respect to develop and maintain treatment plan or goals for

13

inmate patients based on your response to interrogatory no. 1, set two, served 9-24.18.” (ECF No. 80

14

at 10.) Defendant Fischer objected as follows: “Defendant objects to this request on the grounds it is

15

vague as to ‘IDTT functions,’ vague in its entirety, ambiguous, compound, irrelevant, unintelligible,

16

and the request is not self-contained. Defendant is unsure what Plaintiff is asking, and therefore,

17

without a clear request, Defendant is unable to respond.” (Id.) The magistrate judge sustained

18

Defendant’s objection that the request is vague and unintelligible. (Id.) The magistrate judge further

19

found that the request is “vague and overbroad because the IDTT serves many different functions as

20

outlined in the Mental Health Program Guide at

21

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/DHCS/docs/Mental%20Health%20Program%20Guide.pdf provided to

22

Plaintiff in response to interrogatory no. 5.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s current objection is likewise

23

unintelligible and is therefore overruled.

24

Finally, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s ruling on Defendant Fischer’s response to

25

Interrogatory, Set Three, Number 5, and argues that a responding party cannot respond to an

26

interrogatory by producing a 193-page document. (Mot. at 4.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant Fischer

27

failed to adequately answer the interrogatory and simply produced a voluminous amount of business

28

records that Plaintiff could not navigate. (Id. at 4-5.) Interrogatory, Set Three, Number 5 requested as
4

1

follows: “Relative to your response to interrogatory no. 4 above, please explain what the MHSDS

2

Program guide instruct or call for IDTT to do in direct response to CDCR-128-MH5 referenced above

3

which include crisis bed evaluations.” (ECF No. 80 at 13.) Defendant Fischer responded: “Defendant

4

objects to this request on the grounds it is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, compound, calls for

5

speculation, lacks foundation, assumes facts, and the document speaks for itself. Without waiving

6

these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Assuming Plaintiff is asking what the Mental Health

7

Program Guide says, Plaintiff is directed to the Mental Health Program Guide, a copy of which is

8

being produced to Plaintiff at DEF 1-193.” (Id.) The magistrate judge sustained Defendant’s

9

objections as vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, compound, calls for speculation, lacks foundation,

10

assumes facts, and the document speaks for itself. (Id.) The magistrate judge further noted that under

11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), a responding party may answer an interrogatory, such as the

12

instant request, by producing documents. (Id.) Defendant responded to this interrogatory by

13

providing Plaintiff with a copy of the entire Program Guide because Defendant could not reasonably

14

point to a specific page or paragraph of the document, given that Plaintiff’s request was so vague and

15

unintelligible. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

16

III.

17

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

18
19

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration,
filed April 11, 2019 (ECF No. 81), is denied.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 20, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
5