Endsley v. Mayberg et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/17/2011 ORDERING that dfts' 39 unopposed motion to compel is GRANTED; pltf must provide, by 10/31/2011, written responses to each of dfts' productions requests as set forth in this order; pltf must also provide signed verifications no later than 10/31/2011; pltf's second premature 37 motion for partial summary judgment is VACATED from the court's calendar; once pltf has timely provided the responses and verfication s ordered herein, he should so inform the court and in doing so, re-notice the instant motion on the court's calendar; and dfts' 41 ex parte motion for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment is PARTIALLY GRANTED, the dispositive motions deadline is extended to 1/7/2012. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARC ANTHONY LOWELL ENDSLEY,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.
STEPHEN MAYBERG, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

No. CIV S-09-2311 WBS GGH P

ORDER
/

Introduction
Plaintiff pro se, civilly committed to a state mental hospital, seeks relief pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Pending before the court are: 1) plaintiff’s motion for partial summary

19

judgment, filed on July 8, 2011, to which defendants’ filed their opposition on July 27, 2011; 2)

20

defendants’ motion to compel discovery, filed on July 27, 2011, to which plaintiff has failed to

21

file any response; and 3) defendants’ ex parte motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive

22

motion, filed on October 6, 2011.

23

Plaintiff’s Allegations

24

In sum, this action proceeds on plaintiff’s claims that his transfer from Patton

25

State Hospital to Atascadero State Hospital was retaliatory for his having filed lawsuits and

26

grievances and was also predicated on his refusal to accept treatment although he has a right to
1

1

refuse such treatment, and that he has been deprived of his property without due process.1

2

Plaintiff seeks money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief. See Complaint.

3

Motion to Compel

4

Defendants move to compel plaintiff’s responses, under Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

37(a)(3)(B), to defendants’ requests for production of documents, set one, and to require,

6

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), that he provide signed verifications under oath in support of

7

his interrogatory responses. Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel (MTC), pp. 1-2.

8

Defendants’ counsel sets forth under oath that defendants Mayberg, Malancharuvil, Luna,

9

DeMorales and Radavsky served plaintiff with requests for admissions, set one; interrogatories,

10

set one; and requests for production of documents, set one, on March 1, 2011. MTC, p. 2, citing

11

Declaration of Christina Carroll,2¶ 3. Exhibit (Ex.) A to Christina Carroll’s declaration are,

12

according to defendants, copies of defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production. MTC,

13

Carroll Dec., ¶ 3. Ex. B, defendants aver, contains plaintiff’s responses to the interrogatories and

14

requests for production. Id. Defendants contend that plaintiff did not provide a proof of service

15

for his responses to the requests for admissions and interrogatories but that the responses were

16

contained in a envelope postmarked June 2, 2011, a copy of which is attached as Ex. C to the

17

Carroll declaration. Id.

18

Defendants concede that plaintiff produced copies of five letters to and from

19

various employees of the Department of Mental Health, they maintain that he provided no

20

response to any of the requests for production nor indicate how, if at all, the letters were

21

responsive to the defendants’ production requests. MTC, pp. 2-3, Carroll Dec., ¶ 4.

22

Furthermore, defendants assert that plaintiff failed to provide signed verifications under oath

23
1

24
25

Plaintiff’s claim that he was entitled to notice or due process prior to his transfer from
Patton State Hospital to Atascadero State Hospital has been dismissed. See Order, filed on
January 19, 2011, adopting Findings and Recommendations, filed on November 22, 2010.
2

26

Christina Carroll states that she is an associate attorney with Williams & Associates,
attorneys of record for defendants. Carroll Dec., ¶ 2.
2

1
2

attesting to the truth of his interrogatory responses. MTC, p. 3, Carroll Dec., ¶ 4.
Plaintiff, as noted, has provided no response whatsoever to defendants’ motion.

3

The letter copies produced by plaintiff include correspondence signed by some of the defendants

4

and other correspondence that is not. MTC, Ex. B to Carroll Dec. One letter is from plaintiff

5

addressed to two defendants in this case and dated June 9, 2008. Defendants are correct that

6

simply producing documentation without indicating to which requests they are intended to be

7

responsive and without appropriate indication as to how the documents are responsive to specific

8

requests is plainly inadequate. In one letter, for example, defendant DeMorales explains why,

9

inter alia, nurses cannot be expected to maintain plaintiff’s electronic equipment in the nursing

10

station (as it can be inferred that plaintiff asked) when their primary job is to provide care and

11

treatment for patients. In the letter from plaintiff, he complains of the circumstances of his

12

transfer from Patton State Hospital to Atascadero, avers that Atascadero is not appropriate for

13

him, complains of a lack of access to property to which he had had access at Patton and promises

14

that, should he be returned to Patton or another more “appropriate” hospital (than Atascadero), he

15

would no longer fail to comply with court procedures there (at Patton) as he had before. A letter

16

from various non-party staff at Patton indicates, among other things, a lack of cooperation on

17

plaintiff’s part with his treatment regime prior to the transfer. The letter writers state that while

18

the treatment team at Patton had realized some success with plaintiff in the past, he had become

19

unwilling to talk to or cooperate with Patton staff and alleged that plaintiff felt he was being

20

punished at Patton in retaliation for his past litigious and threatening behaviors. The reason for

21

the transfer is stated as being for the purpose of providing plaintiff with a new start and also so

22

that when his requests were denied (as apparently occurred when he was not permitted a

23

Playstation III at Patton), he would be assured that the denials were not in retaliation for past

24

behavior. It is unclear how this letter, evidently written and signed by individuals who are not

25

parties to this action, is responsive to defendants’ requests for production and plaintiff should

26

indicate how the production is responsive.
3

1

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A), a party to whom a request for production “is

2

directed must respond in writing....” Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4), “an evasive or incomplete

3

disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.”

4

Plaintiff will be directed to provide written responses, by October 31, 2011, to each request for

5

production of documents, to identify to which requests the production he has made is responsive

6

and to provide any further production he has within his possession, custody or control that is

7

responsive to the requests or, if he has no documents to produce with respect to any request, he is

8

to indicate in writing as to each such request that he has no production responsive to the request.

9

As for the lack of verifications, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) requires that “[e]ach

10

interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing

11

under oath.”3 Plaintiff must provide, by October 31, 2011, verifications signed under oath in

12

support of his responses to set one of defendants’ interrogatories propounded upon him.

13

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

14

By order, filed on May 12, 2011, plaintiff’s first motion for partial summary

15

judgment was vacated as premature from the court’s calendar subject to being re-noticed once

16

discovery closes. In that order, the court observed that the Discovery and Scheduling Order set

17

the discovery deadline as July 27, 2011. Nevertheless, plaintiff then proceeded to file a second

18

motion for partial summary judgment, on July 8, 2011, prior to the discovery cut-off and prior to

19

the deadline for the filing of any motion to compel discovery. The court will once again vacate

20

the premature partial summary judgment motion, subject to being re-noticed after October 31,

21

2011, by which time plaintiff must have provided defendants the further discovery responses

22

directed by the court herein. When plaintiff has complied timely with this order directing further

23

responses, plaintiff may re-notice his second motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff

24

need not re-file the substantive motion, nor do defendants need to file any further opposition.

25
26

3

Emphasis added.
4

1

Instead, plaintiff must simply file a notice to the court indicating that he has timely complied

2

with the instant order and is therefore re-noticing his now- vacated second motion for partial

3

summary judgment on the court’s calendar.

4

Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time

5

The discovery and scheduling order set November 8, 2011, as the deadline for

6

filing of pretrial dispositive motions. Defendants, however, filed a motion to compel discovery,

7

which the court by this order has granted. Defendants are entitled to the discovery responses

8

sought and plaintiff has been directed to provide them by no later than October 31, 2011.

9

Nevertheless, defendants do not show good cause to be granted four months or more from the

10

date of this order to bring a summary judgment motion. Instead, defendants will be granted a

11

two-month extension of time from the original dispositive motion deadline, or until January 7,

12

2012, (which is more than two months after the further discovery defendants have sought from

13

plaintiff is due) to file any dispositive motion.

14

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

15

1. Defendants’ July 27, 2011 (docket # 39), unopposed motion to compel

16

plaintiff’s responses to their requests for production of documents, set one, and for signed

17

verifications under oath by plaintiff in support of his responses to defendants’ interrogatories, set

18

one, is granted;

19

2. Plaintiff must provide, by October 31, 2011, written responses to each of

20

defendants’ production requests, set one, as set forth above, identifying to which request his

21

production has been responsive, providing further production where appropriate if he has such

22

within his possession, custody or control, and indicating, where he has none, that he has no

23

responsive documentation; plaintiff must also provide signed verifications in support of his

24

responses to defendants’ interrogatories, set one, by no later than October 31, 2011;

25
26

3. Plaintiff’s second premature motion for partial summary judgment, filed on
July 8, 2011 (docket # 37), is hereby vacated from the court’s calendar; however, once plaintiff
5

1

has timely provided the responses and verifications ordered herein, he should so inform the court

2

and in doing so, re-notice the instant motion on the court’s calendar. Plaintiff need not re-file the

3

substantive second motion for partial summary judgment and defendants need not file any further

4

opposition;

5

4. Defendants’ ex parte motion for an extension of time to file a motion for

6

summary judgment, filed on October 6, 2011 (docket # 41), is partially granted; the deadline for

7

the filing of a dispositive motion is now extended to January 7, 2012.

8

DATED: October 17, 2011

9
10
11

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH:009

ends2311.ord2

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6