Hubbard v. Hougland et al

Filing 152

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/2/2015 ORDERING that plaintiff's 149 motion for an extension is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, denied as premature with respect to the the request to extend the time for pretrial stat ements and disclosures and granted with respect to the request to extend the time for dispositive motions, and the parties have 60 days to file any dispositive motions; plaintiff's 151 motion for leave to submit additional discovery requests is DENIED; and plaintiff's 150 motion for clarification is GRANTED to the extent clarification regarding plaintiff's claims has been provided with this order. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARRYL L. HUBBARD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:09-cv-00939 TLN AC P

v.

ORDER

C.D. HOUGLAND, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil

17
18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s

19

motion for an extension of the time to file pretrial motions, statements, and disclosures (ECF No.

20

149); motion for clarification (ECF No. 150); and motion to permit additional discovery (ECF

21

No. 151).

22

I.

23

Motion for Extension
In his motion for extension, plaintiff requests an extension of the time to file pretrial

24

motions, statements, and disclosures, up to March 1, 2015. ECF No. 149. Since the court has yet

25

to schedule a deadline for pretrial statements and disclosures, this portion of the request is

26

premature and denied as such. However, the request to extend the deadline for pretrial motions

27

will be granted.

28

The May 14, 2013 Discovery and Scheduling Order set September 3, 2013, as the
1

1

discovery deadline and November 22, 2013, as the pretrial dispositive motion deadline. ECF No.

2

120 at 5-6. Plaintiff brought a motion to compel discovery on August 27, 2013. ECF No. 123.

3

On August 30, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motion to modify the Discovery and

4

Scheduling Order, extending the time to depose plaintiff to November 2, 2013, and extending the

5

pretrial motion deadline to January 3, 2014. ECF No. 124.

6

On January 13, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ second motion to modify the

7

dispositive motion deadline, and dispositive motions were to be filed no later than sixty days after

8

the court ruled on the pending motion to compel. ECF No. 132. By order filed on March 18,

9

2014, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ordering further responses to specific

10

but more narrowly tailored interrogatories and requests for production. ECF No. 133. Upon

11

issuance of a protective order, the court directed discovery responses and documentation be

12

provided within thirty days. Id.

13

Defendants sought reconsideration of the ruling on plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No.

14

136. Upon reconsideration by the district judge, the March 18, 2014 order was affirmed. ECF

15

No. 137. Based on the date the district judge affirmed the March 18, 2014 order, dispositive

16

motions were due no later than October 13, 2014. See ECF No. 132. However, due to extensions

17

(ECF Nos. 143, 146), service of the supplemental responses in conformity with the court’s March

18

18, 2014 order compelling additional responses was not completed until December 1, 2014 (ECF

19

Nos. 146, 148). The October 13, 2014 dispositive motion deadline is therefore vacated and the

20

parties shall have sixty days to file any dispositive motions.

21

II.

22

Motion for Additional Discovery
Discovery in this case closed on September 3, 2013. ECF No. 120 at 5. As set forth

23

above, discovery was re-opened for the limited purpose of completing discovery pursuant to the

24

March 18, 2014 order on plaintiff’s motion to compel. Limited discovery ultimately closed on

25

December 1, 2014, when the defendants provided their supplemental responses. ECF Nos. 146,

26

148. Plaintiff has now filed a motion in which he seeks permission to submit follow-up discovery

27

requests related to the documents provided by the defendants. ECF No. 151. Though he does not

28

identify when he received the documents referenced in the motion, plaintiff is presumably
2

1

referring to the documents served by the defendants on December 1, 2014 (ECF No. 148).

2

Plaintiff’s motion requests leave to obtain additional discovery related to how complaints

3

about the defendants were investigated, whether the defendants were subject to mental health

4

evaluations as a result of complaints against them, and what was done with any mental health

5

recommendations that may have been made. ECF No. 151 at 2. He claims that if the

6

investigations were not properly conducted and any mental health recommendations were

7

ignored, then it would have encouraged the defendants to continue their alleged misconduct. Id.

8
9

Aside from its limited re-opening, discovery has long been closed (ECF No. 120 at 5) and
plaintiff’s request comes nearly two months after defendants served their additional responses

10

(ECF No. 148). Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why he could not have sought the requested

11

information prior to the original close of discovery or why he waited nearly two months from

12

service of the additional responses to request leave to obtain this additional information. Plaintiff

13

has not provided sufficient reason to justify re-opening discovery and his motion for additional

14

discovery will be denied.

15

III.

16

Motion for Clarification
Plaintiff also requests clarification of the court’s previous statement that this case involves

17

an allegation of excessive force. ECF No. 150. The court will grant plaintiff’s motion to the

18

extent it provides the following clarification. The operative complaint in this case is plaintiff’s

19

second amended complaint (ECF No. 30). See ECF No. 63. The second amended complaint

20

identifies only Hougland and McBride as defendants. ECF No. 30 at 1-2. Plaintiff’s claim that

21

defendants Hougland and McBride assaulted him is a claim for excessive use of force in violation

22

of his Eighth Amendment rights. As previously stated in the court’s March 18, 2014 order,

23

plaintiff is not proceeding on a conspiracy claim or a claim of retaliation. ECF No. 133 at 5.

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension (ECF No. 149) is denied in part and granted in part.

26

The motion is denied as premature with respect to the request to extend the time for pretrial

27

statements and disclosures and granted with respect to the request to extend the time for

28

dispositive motions. The October 13, 2014 dispositive motion deadline is therefore vacated, and
3

1

the parties shall have sixty days from the date of this order to file any dispositive motions.

2
3
4

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to submit additional discovery requests (ECF No. 151) is
denied.
3. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 150), is granted to the extent clarification

5

regarding plaintiff’s claims has been provided above.

6

DATED: March 2, 2015

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