Arellano v. Haskins et al

Filing 48

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 42 Defendants' Motion to Compel Further Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/16/2020. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIK ARELLANO,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

CHAD HASKINS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01235 - LJO-JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY
(Doc. 42)

16
17

Erik Arellano asserts Bakersfield Police Officers Chad Haskins and Frederick Martinez used

18

excessive force after he surrendered to an arrest. (Doc. 9) Defendants assert Plaintiff again failed to

19

provide proper responses to their interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Pursuant

20

to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to provide

21

further discovery responses. (Doc. 42) Plaintiff opposes the motion, asserting he complied with the

22

prior motion to compel and provided verified responses to his discovery responses. (Doc. 43)
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to compel further discovery from Plaintiff

23
24

is GRANTED in part.

25

I.

26

Relevant Background
The Court held a scheduling conference on January 8, 2019, at which deadlines related to

27

discovery were set for the parties. (Doc. 24) The parties were ordered to exchange their initial

28

disclosures no later than January 28, 2019. (Id. at 1, 3) In addition, the Court ordered the parties to
1

1
2

complete all non-expert discovery no later than February 18, 2020. (Id.)
Defendants served Plaintiff with interrogatories, a request for admissions, and a request for

3

production of documents on February 13, 2019. (Doc. 28-1 at 2-3) Although responses were due no

4

later than March 18, 2019, Plaintiff failed to respond. (Id.) On March 28, 2019, Defendants’ Counsel,

5

Heather Cohen, notified Plaintiff through a letter “that his Initial Disclosure and discovery responses

6

were delinquent and requested that he provide his Initial Disclosure and responses to the discovery

7

requests on or before April 15, 2019.” (Id. at 3) Plaintiff failed to respond to the letter, either by

8

providing the discovery requested or seeking an extension of time to respond. (Id.)

9

On April 18, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery, reporting Plaintiff failed to

10

comply with the Court’s Scheduling Order to make his initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26 of the

11

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that he failed to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests.

12

(Doc. 28) The Court granted the motion and directed Plaintiff to serve his initial disclosures. (Doc. 30

13

at 6) Plaintiff was directed to “respond to Defendants’ Interrogatories-Set One and produce documents

14

responsive to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents- Set One no later than May 31, 2019.”

15

(Id., emphasis omitted) Further, Plaintiff was advised “failure to comply with this order or any other

16

order of the Court—including the scheduling order—may result in the Court imposing sanctions on him

17

which could include dismissal of the action as authorized by Local Rule 110.” (Id., emphasis omitted)

18

On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff served a document entitled “Appendix” upon Defendants, which

19

included his initial disclosures, a notice of change of address (indicating the same address already listed

20

on the Court’s docket), Responses to Interrogatories, and Responses to Request for Production of

21

Documents. (Doc. 34-2 at 43) In response to several requests, Plaintiff indicated he was “not prepared

22

to produce the documents...due to a lack of making copies.” (Id. at 51) He also indicated some

23

documents were “not prepaired (sic) at [the] moment.” (Id. at 52) Defendants’ counsel, Heather

24

Cohen, wrote to Plaintiff on June 3, 2019, “and requested that he provide proper verified responses and

25

documents by June 14, 2019.” (Id.) When Plaintiff failed to do so, Defendants filed a second motion

26

to compel on June 25, 2019, which was granted by the Court. (Docs. 34, 37)

27

On September 27, 2019, the Court informed Plaintiff that he must provide responses to

28

interrogatories that were “accompanied by verification signed under oath.” (Doc. 37 at 5) In addition,
2

1

the Court determined his “responses to the Request for Production—namely, that he was not prepared

2

to produce the documents because he did not have copies—was insufficient for the Court to determine

3

whether responsive documents exist, or the extent to which Plaintiff is refusing to engage in discovery.”

4

(Id.) Plaintiff was also informed that if he had “control over any medical records, he may execute a

5

release for Defendants to obtain the records” to properly respond to the requests for production. (Id.)

6

Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “serve supplemental responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories-

7

Set One and produce documents responsive to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents- Set

8

One no later than October 18, 2019.” (Id. at 6, emphasis omitted)

9

On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery. (Doc. 33 at 1) At the same time,

10

he attempted to file his discovery responses, including responses to interrogatories, requests for

11

admissions, and the production of documents. (See id. at 1) However, the Clerk of Court returned the

12

discovery responses to Plaintiff with a “Clerks Notice” that indicated: “Pursuant to Local Rule

13

250.2(c), Interrogatories, Responses and Proofs of Service shall not be filed with the Clerk of Court

14

until there is a proceeding in which the Interrogatories, Responses, or Proofs of Service are at issue.”

15

(See Doc. 42-3 at 53) Plaintiff then served the documents—and the Clerk’s Notice—upon Defendants

16

on October 24, 2019. (See id. at 2, ¶ 6)

17

On November 1, 2019, the Court issued a minute order regarding discovery, indicting

18

Defendants were authorized to bring a motion to compel discovery if necessary. (Doc. 40) Plaintiff

19

was “advised that he is obligated to write his responses to discovery requests in the blanks provided or

20

to rewrite the questions and write his responses below. Also, his answers to interrogatories must be

21

signed under penalty of perjury.” (Id.) In addition, the Court ordered: “[T]o the extent the plaintiff

22

knows of documents but does not have them with him in jail, he SHALL describe the documents with

23

specificity and identify from whom the defendants can obtain a copy. Likewise, he SHALL take all

24

reasonable steps to obtain his documents or to have a friend or family member provide the copies of the

25

documents to the defense.” (Id.)

26

On November 7, 2019 Defendants filed the motion now pending before the Court, related to the

27

discovery responses received from Plaintiff. (Doc. 42) Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion on

28

December 23, 2019. (Doc. 43)
3

1

II.

Motions to Compel Discovery
Under the Federal Rules, “[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an

2
3

answer, designation, production or inspection” when “a party fails to answer an interrogatory

4

submitted under Rule 33; or . . . a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted – or fails to

5

permit inspection – as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
The scope and limitations of discovery are set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

6
7

and Evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) states:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged manner that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense – including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or
other tangible things…For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the accident. Relevant information need not
be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.

8
9
10
11
12

Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that

13

is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be

14

without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevancy to a subject matter is interpreted “broadly to

15

encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on,

16

any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).

17

III.

Discussion and Analysis

18

Defendants assert the discovery responses received were “untimely pursuant to the Court’s

19

order” and “they suffer from the same deficiencies as set forth in the previous motions to compel.”

20

(Doc. 42-2 at 3; Doc. 42-1 at 3-4) Defendants maintain the discovery responses are “procedurally

21

deficient” and fail to contain a verification under oath. (Id.) Further, Defendants assert Plaintiff

22

should be compelled to provide further responses to several interrogatories and their requests for

23

production. (See id. at 3-10; see also Doc. 42-1 at 5)

24

A.

Timeliness of the Responses

25

Plaintiff was ordered to “serve supplemental responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories-Set One

26

and produce documents responsive to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents- Set One no

27

later than October 18, 2019.” (Doc. 37 at 6, emphasis omitted) Defendants observe that they were not

28

served with the responses until October 24, 2019, rendering the supplemental discovery untimely.
4

1
2

(Doc. 42-1 at 3-4)
The Court notes that Plaintiff—mistakenly—attempted to comply with the Court’s order by

3

filing the discovery documents on October 11, 2019, rather than serving the documents only upon

4

Defendants. Thus, it appears Plaintiff attempted to comply with the deadline ordered but was unaware

5

that such documents should not be filed with the Court. Regardless, the untimeliness of the discovery

6

responses alone is not a basis for granting the requested relief for supplemental responses to the

7

interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

8

B.

Interrogatories

9

A party may propound interrogatories relating to any matter that may be inquired to under Rule

10

26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). A responding party is obligated to respond to the fullest extent possible,

11

and any objections must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4). In general, a

12

responding party is not required “to conduct extensive research in order to answer an interrogatory, but

13

a reasonable effort to respond must be made.” Haney v. Saldana, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93447, at *9

14

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2010) (citing L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73753 (E.D. Cal.

15

Sep. 21, 2007)). Further, the responding party must supplement a response if the information sought is

16

later obtained or the previous response requires a correction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).

17

1.

Procedural Deficiencies

18

As an initial matter, Defendants observe that Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses “do not comply

19

with Local Rule 260.2 which requires that Plaintiff either write his responses in the blanks provided or

20

retype or rewrite the interrogatories along with the answers.” (Doc. 42-1 at 4)

21

Review of Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery responses reveals that Plaintiff re-wrote the

22

interrogatories on a piece of paper, and he then wrote his responses on a separate piece of paper. (See

23

Doc. 42-3 at 55-62, 64-68) Although this format is not in compliance with the Local Rule, Plaintiff’s

24

responses to each interrogatory are clearly numbered and it is easy to correspond the interrogatory

25

with the response. Indeed, in challenging specific interrogatories below, Defendants have

26

demonstrated an ability to identify clearly identify Plaintiff’s responses to the specific interrogatories.

27

For this reason, the Court will not require Plaintiff to re-write each of his responses to the

28

interrogatories, despite the procedural deficiency.
5

1
2

2.

Verification

According to Defendants, “Plaintiff did not include Verifications in his responses to the

3

Interrogatories.” (Doc. 42-1 at 4) Plaintiff responds that he did, in fact, provide verification to his

4

interrogatories and the motion to compel should not be granted on these grounds. (Doc. 43 at 1)

5

Notably, Plaintiff’s “Answer Sheet” to the interrogatories propounded by defendant Chad

6

Haskins includes the statement: “I, Erik Arellano, declare under penalty of perjury that the

7

aforementioned is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” (Doc. 42-3 at 62) Likewise,

8

Plaintiff’s “Answer Sheet” to the interrogatories propounded by defendant Frederick Martinez is

9

concluded with the statement: “I, Erik Arellano, declare under penalty of perjury that the

10

aforementioned is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” (Id. at 68) Both documents are dated

11

October 7, 2019 and were signed by Plaintiff. (Id. at 62, 68)

12

Because Plaintiff signed his responses to the interrogatories propounded by Defendants under

13

penalty of perjury, the Court finds the documents contained the required verifications. Defendants’

14

motion to compel further discovery responses for lack of verification is DENIED.

15

3.

Interrogatory Number 5

16

Defendants contend Plaintiff should be required to provide further verified responses to

17

Interrogatory No. 5, propounded by Officer Haskins, which states: “Please IDENTIFY all DAMAGES

18

YOU claim to have incurred as a result of the use of force by CHAD HASKINS as alleged in YOUR

19

First Amended Complaint on file herein.” (Doc. 42-2 at 3)

20

Plaintiff initially responded: “Emotional distress, physical injuries, etc...” (Doc. 42-2 at 3)

21

After the Court ordered further discovery, Plaintiff’s supplement response stated: “Plaintiff suffered

22

the following damages due to gross and deliberate approximational acts of defendant; obvert malicious

23

intent to inflict cruel and unusual punishment upon Plaintiff and [unnecessary] wanton pain and

24

injuries, and as Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer irreparably under (Fed. State § 1997e(e).)

25

from PTSD.” (Doc. 42-3 at 59-60)

26

Defendants contend the supplemental response is “extremely vague… and provides no

27

information to provide Defendants with any idea as to the specific damages he is claiming.” (Doc. 42-

28

2 at 4) According to Defendants, a further response should be compelled because they “are entitled to
6

1
2

know the extent and nature of Plaintiff’s claims for damages.” (Id.)
As Defendants argue, Plaintiff’s supplemental response fails to identify specific damages

3

suffered. For example, he has not identified the amount of monetary damages sought or identified the

4

physical injuries he claims to have suffered. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel additional

5

responses to Interrogatory No. 5 propounded by defendant Haskins is GRANTED.

6

4.

Interrogatory Number 7

7

Defendants contend Plaintiff should be required to provide further verified responses to

8

Interrogatory No. 7, propounded by Officer Haskins, which states: “Please IDENTIFY ALL HEALTH

9

CARE PROVIDERS who rendered professional services to YOU within the last ten years to the

10
11
12
13
14
15

present.” (Doc. 42-2 at 4)
Plaintiff initially responded that he did “not have access to such records at the moment.” (Doc.
42-2 at 4) In the supplemental response, Plaintiff stated:
Plaintiff is not in the possession of the requested medical documents nor does he have
the knowledge of names/titles although he has taken the proper steps to obtain them,
and is awaiting to receive them via CDCR 77385 Forms per policy and procedure
within the scope of “In Re Olsen” (1984) 117, Cal.Rptr. 579, 584 have been filed and
has no option but to wait in order to receive them.

16

(Doc. 42-3 at 60) Defendants assert this “response is evasive,” because the interrogatory asks for

17

information rather than the actual records. (Doc. 42-1 at 4; Doc. 42-2 at 4) In addition, Defendants

18

observe the Court previously “unequivocally rejected” Plaintiff’s argument to delay discovery “based

19

on his inability to access records.” (Doc. 42-2 at 4)

20

As Defendants assert, this interrogatory seeks information regarding “names of Plaintiff’s

21

doctors or medical care facilities where he has been treated.” (See Doc. 42-2 at 4) Thus, it is unclear

22

why Plaintiff would need the medical records to respond to the interrogatory. Plaintiff may respond to

23

the interrogatory with information regarding facilities where he sought medical care—or was

24

transported for medical care—and information regarding the doctors and nurses who treated him, to

25

the extent he knows such information. For example, if Plaintiff has a general practitioner or therapist

26

who has treated him in the last ten years—including during his incarceration— that information should

27

be provided to Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel a supplemental response to

28

Interrogatory No. 7, propounded by defendant Haskins, is GRANTED.
7

5.

1
2

Interrogatory Number 14

Defendants contend Plaintiff should be required to provide an additional response to

3

Interrogatory Number 14 propounded by defendant Haskins, which stated: “If YOU are claiming any

4

temporary or permanent disability as a result of the INCIDENT, please state the nature and extent of

5

such disability.” (Doc. 42-2 at 5)

6

Initially, Plaintiff responded: “Yet to be determined. Upon gaining knowledge I could answer

7

in more full detail.” (Id.) His supplemental response stated: “Plaintiff claims ongoing deprivations

8

and dispondencies as stated on interrogatory No. 5 response. I cannot ascertain as to when I the

9

Plaintiff will stop suffering at any point in time, as I am not a psychiatrist.” (Doc. 42-3 at 61)

10

As Defendants argue, Plaintiff has not clearly responded to the interrogatory and it is uncertain

11

whether he “is claiming a disability or he is not.” (Doc. 42-2 at 5) Defendants are entitled to know

12

whether Plaintiff is claiming a physical disability, mental disability, or both. In addition, Defendants

13

are entitled to know the extent to which Plaintiff believes he is disabled, whether this belief is

14

supported by actual medical documentation (given Plaintiff’s reported inability to access his records).

15

Therefore, Defendants’ request to compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 14 propounded by

16

Haskins is GRANTED.

17

C.

Requests for Production of Documents

18

A party may request documents “in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.”

19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Similarly, a party may serve a request “to permit entry onto designated land

20

or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may

21

inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2). A

22

request is adequate if it describes items with “reasonable particularity;” specifies a reasonable time,

23

place, and manner for the inspection; and specifies the form or forms in which electronic information

24

can be produced. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Thus, a request is sufficiently clear if it “places the party

25

upon ‘reasonable notice of what is called for and what is not.’” Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Ins.

26

Co., 192. F.R.D. 193, 202 (N.D. W. Va. 2000), quoting Parsons v. Jefferson-Pilot Corp., 141 F.R.D.

27

408, 412 (M.D.N.C. 1992)).

28

The responding party must respond in writing and is obliged to produce all specified relevant
8

1

and non-privileged documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information in its “possession,

2

custody, or control” on the date specified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Actual possession, custody or control

3

is not required. “A party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity

4

if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in possession

5

of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In the alternative, a

6

party may state an objection to a request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(B). When

7

a party resists discovery, he “has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the

8

burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 189

9

F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Nestle Food Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 135 F.R.D. 101,

10
11

104 (D.N.J. 1990)).
Defendants seek to compel further responses to the following Requests for Production of

12

Documents propounded by Haskins and Martinez, Set One. (Doc. 42-2 at 5-9) In response to each of

13

each of requests, Plaintiff either indicated that he “does not have possession of such requested

14

documents” or that documents were not prepared. (See Doc. 42-3 at 88-90) Plaintiff indicates he took

15

“the proper steps to procure said documents via CDCR 22 Request (In Re Olson) and Request for

16

Courts Assistance.” (Id.)

17

Defendants assert Plaintiffs “responses are not acceptable” to the Requests for Production of

18

documents. (Doc. 42-2 at 7) In addition, Defendants contend, “Plaintiff has had over eight months

19

within which to gather documents responsive to these requests.” (Id.) According to Defendants, they

20

“are entitled to these documents and without same, it is impossible for Defendants to defend this action

21

and evaluate the case and Plaintiff’s claims therein.” (Id.)

22

Notably, it appears Plaintiff prepared his supplemental responses on October 7, 2019 (see Doc.

23

42-3 at 90). Thus, the responses were prepared prior to the Court’s minute order on November 1, 2019,

24

which informed Plaintiff:

25
26
27
28

[T]o the extent the plaintiff knows of documents but does not have them with him in jail,
he SHALL describe the documents with specificity and identify from whom the
defendants can obtain a copy. Likewise, he SHALL take all reasonable steps to obtain his
documents or to have a friend or family member provide the copies of the documents to
the defense.
(See Doc. 40) Because Plaintiff did not describe the documents or identify the individuals from whom
9

1

Defendants could obtain copies, his responses are insufficient, and Defendants’ motion to compel

2

discovery is GRANTED.
Again, the Court informs Plaintiff that to the extent his still does not have actual possession of

3
4

the requested documents, he shall describe the documents that are responsive to his request—including

5

the documents he requested in his CDCR 22 Request—and identify the custodian. In addition, Plaintiff

6

SHALL authorize Defendants to be able to receive such documents or authorize another individual to

7

provide the requested documents to Defendants.

8

IV.

9

Conclusion and Order
Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

10

1.

Defendants’ motion to compel discovery (Doc. 42) is GRANTED in part; and

11

2.

Plaintiff SHALL serve supplemental responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories-Set One,

12

Numbers 5, 7, and 14; and produce documents responsive to Defendants’ Request for

13

Production of Documents- Set One no later than February 14, 2020.

14

Plaintiff is reminded that his failure to comply with this order, or any other order, of the Court

15

may result in the Court imposing sanctions on him which could include dismissal of the action as

16

authorized by Local Rule 110.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 16, 2020

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10