Butler v. Wolcott et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Robert H. Whaley on 05/14/10 DENYING 13 Motion to Compel. A telephonic status conference is set for June 30, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. No later than ten (10) days before the scheduling conference, the parties shall submit a j oint status certificate. No later than fourteen (14) days before the scheduling conference, the parties should meet and confer to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, and the possibilities for a settlement of this case. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, Defendants are directed to submit briefing with respect to the reasonable fees and expenses associated with the bringing of this motion. (Williams, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 B e fo re the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Ct. Rec. 13). The motion M A R C E LLU S BUTLER, P la intiff, v. C D C R , L. WOLCOTT, B. W EBSTER , Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO C O M P E L ; SETTING T E L E P H O N I C STATUS CONFERENCE N O . CV-08-0857-RHW U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 5 w a s heard without oral argument. 16 17 " P a rtie s may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is re le va nt to any party's claim or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be

1 8 a d mis s ib le at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 1 9 d is c o ve ry of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). For document 2 0 p ro d uc tio n requests, responding parties must produce documents which are in their 2 1 " p o s s e s s io n, custody or control." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1). 22 If Defendants object to one of Plaintiff's discovery requests, it is Plaintiff's

2 3 b urd e n on his motion to compel to demonstrate why the objection is not justified. 24 25 26 27 28 O rd ina rily, Plaintiff must inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject o f his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the Court why the info rma tio n sought is relevant and why Defendants' objections are not justified. In his motion, Plaintiff challenges the response provided by Defendants. Each of Plaintiff's challenges will be addressed in turn. O R D E R DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL; SETTING TELEPHONIC S T A T U S CONFERENCE ~ 1

1 2

1.

I nte r r og a tor y No. 2 In Interrogatory No. 2, Plaintiff requested Defendants to provide him with a

3 b rie f draft of the CDCR's policies for ADA inmates in emergencies. Defendants 4 o b je c te d to the request because the information it seeks is not relevant to Plaintiff's 5 c la im and the question is overly broad and burdensome. The Court agrees. 6 Plaintiff's claims are based on Wolcott's and Webster's failure to clean up water 7 tha t had accumulated on the floor. Plaintiff is not seeking relief under the ADA. 8 Moreover, it is not clear the time period in question, the type of emergency, or the

9 p a rtic ula r situation. Thus, the request is overbroad. 10 2. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I nte r r og a tor y No. 5 In interrogatory No. 5, Plaintiff requested: P le a s e describe in as much detail as possible the complete c irc ums ta nc e s surrounding your determinations in forcing Plaintiff and s imila rly situated inmates at High Desert State Prison, with ADA M o b ility Impairment, to traverse the chow hall floor while it was wet w ith no warning signs. D e fe nd a nts denied forcing Plaintiff to traverse the chow hall floor. Plaintiff d is a gre e s with Defendant's assertions, but such a disagreement is not a basis for a mo tio n to compel. 3. R e q ue s t for Production P la intiff asserts that Defendants refused to provide Plaintiff with any d o c ume nts that were requested. Requests No. 1 and 2 seek documents pertaining to ADA inmates and their movement. Defendants objected on the ground that these re q ue s ts were overly broad in scope and time, burdensome, and irrelevant. The C o urt agrees. Request 3 seeks all documents that evidence, mention, or refer to the P la intiff' s constitutional injuries suffered between July 4, 2007 all the way to the p re s e nt time, as well as documents relating to subsequent inmate and staff c o mp la ints and discipline. This request is too broad and seeks information that is p ro te c te d by the right to privacy. O R D E R DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL; SETTING TELEPHONIC S T A T U S CONFERENCE ~ 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

R e q ue s t 4 seeks the complete contents of Plaintiff's prison file, including ins titutio na l complaints, incident reports, evaluations, and mental health records. Defendants report that Plaintiff can review his files through his prison counselor. Request 5 seeks documents regarding Defendants' work conduct or d is c ip lina ry history. This information is privileged and protected, and not ne c e s s a rily relevant to Plaintiff's claim, and the request is overbroad. R e q ue s t 6 and 7 seek documents relating to all slip and fall incidents. These re q ue s ts are overbroad, may infringe on the privacy rights of CDCR inmates and are no t relevant to Plaintiff's claim. R e q ue s t 8 seeks documents, evidence, statements and affidavits that relate to the allegations made in Plaintiff's complaint. This request is overbroad. R e q ue s t 9 seeks documents regarding insurance agreements. This request s e e k s information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the d is c o ve ry of admissible evidence. Sanctions P urs ua nt to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B), if a motion to compel is denied, the c o urt must, after giving an opportunity to be heard require the movant to pay the p a rty who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the mo tio n, including attorney's fees. The Court must not order this payment if the mo tio n was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of e xp e ns e s unjust. H e re , the Court does not find that Plaintiff's motion to compel was s ub s ta ntia lly justified. Therefore, Defendants are directed to submit briefing with re s p e c t to the reasonable fees and expenses associated with defending the motion. A c c o rd ingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Ct. Rec. 13) is DENIED. 2 . A telephonic status conference is set for June 30, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. The p a rtie s are directed to call the Court conference line, [phone], at the O R D E R DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL; SETTING TELEPHONIC S T A T U S CONFERENCE ~ 3

1

a p p ro p ria te time. Counsel for Defendants is ordered to make the proper

2 a rra nge me nts so that Plaintiff can participate telephonically at the Scheduling 3 4 C o n fe r e n c e . 3 . No later than fourteen (14) days before the scheduling conference, the

5 p a rtie s should meet and confer to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and 6 d e fe ns e s , and the possibilities for a settlement of this case. No later than ten (10) 7 d a ys before the scheduling conference, the parties shall submit a joint status 8 c e rtific a te that provides the following: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a. b. c. The parties' recommended trial date and length of trial; Appropriateness of any special procedures; Modification of the standard pretrial procedures due to the relative

s imp lic ity or complexity of the action or proceeding; d. e. Feasibility of bifurcation, or otherwise structuring sequence of the trial; The prospects of settlement, addressing whether there will be a point in

the litigation, short of discovery cut-off, when the parties can conduct meaningful s e ttle me nt discussions or participate in another form of alterative dispute resolution; f. Any other matters which may be conducive to the just, efficient, and

e c o no mic a l determination of the action or proceeding, including the definition or limita tio n of issues. T he following deadline dates will be outlined in an Order after the scheduling c o nfe re nc e . Be prepared to discuss these deadlines if there are any changes. D is c o ve ry cutoff: P la intiffs ' expert witnesses: D e fe nd a nts ' expert witnesses: R e b utta l expert witnesses: D is p o s itiv e motions: E x h ib it/w itn e s s lists: M o tio n s in limine: 1 3 9 days before trial 6 0 days before discovery cutoff 3 0 days before discovery cutoff 1 5 days before discovery cutoff 110 days before trial 45 days before trial 35 days before trial

O R D E R DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL; SETTING TELEPHONIC S T A T U S CONFERENCE ~ 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

P re tria l Order: P re tria l Conference: T ria l briefs J u ry instructions, voir dire

14 days before pretrial conference 17 days before trial 25 days before trial 25 days before trial

4 . Within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, Defendants are directed to submit briefing with respect to the reasonable fees and expenses associated with the bringing of this motion. I T IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this O rd e r and forward copies to Plaintiff and counsel. D A T E D this 14 th day of May, 2010.

s/Robert H. Whaley ROBERT H. WHALEY United States District Judge

C:\WINDOWS\Temp\n otes101AA1\den y.compel.com.wpd

O R D E R DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL; SETTING TELEPHONIC S T A T U S CONFERENCE ~ 5