Lyons v. Folsom Mercy Hospital

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/18/12 denying 49 Motion for default judgment. Defendants shall within 7 days after the filing date of this order, serve plaintiff with actual copies of the documents Date stamped FOL000001 - FOL000120 and simultaneously file a declaration with the court demonstrating such service. Defendants shall also address whether plaintiff was provided with any video or audio recordings. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BART LYONS,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:11-cv-0268 GEB KJN P

vs.
FOLSOM MERCY HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

_______________________________/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner who proceeds without counsel in this civil rights action

17

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 17, 2012, this court ordered defendants to

18

produce to plaintiff, within fourteen days, the following (Dkt. No. 48 at 3):

19

22

. . . all relevant documents, video and audio recordings, and
transcripts, related to plaintiff’s January 26, 2010 arrest, residential
search, and hospitalization, that are in defendants’ possession,
custody or control. Any recordings should be designated for
temporary storage with the litigation office staff at plaintiff’s place
of incarceration, with whom plaintiff should make arrangements to
view or listen to such recordings.

23

On October 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a “motion for default judgment” and/or sanctions, signed by

24

plaintiff on October 11, 2012, and premised on the alleged failure of defendants to produce any

25

discovery in response to the court’s order. (Dkt. No. 49.) On October 17, 2012, defendants filed

26

an opposition, averring that they had served their responses on September 27, 2012. Defendants

20
21

1

1

stated (Dkt. No. 50 at 1-2):

2

On September 27, 2012, Defendants complied with this Court’s
September 17, 2012 Order and served responses to Plaintiff’s
Request for Production. As Plaintiff had requested, the envelope
was marked “legal mail.” A copy of these responses is attached
hereto as Exhibit A. [¶] Documents responsive to the requests
were produced on a CD as Bates numbers FOL000001 –
FOL000120. A copy of the CD label is attached hereto as Exhibit
B.

3
4
5
6

Review of defendants’ responses1 indicates that their production, produced

7
8

entirely by CD, consisted of 120 pages of written documents, with no video or audio recordings.

9

Despite defendants’ representations, the court is unable to determine whether plaintiff has to date

10
1

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Defendants responded as follows (Dkt. No. 50-1 (Exh. A)):

Request for Production No. 1:
All relevant documents.
Response No. 1:
Defendants produce herein Folsom Police Report Case No. 1-10-00392, pp. 1-15,
Bates stamped FOL000001 - FOL000015.
Request No. 2:
Training records of Officers Browning and Lewis.
Response No. 2:
Defendants produce herein Bates stamped FOL000016-FOL000019.
Request No. 3:
Records of Plaintiff’s hospitalization on January 26, 2010.
Response No. 3:
Defendants produce herein documents Bates stamp FOL000020-FOL000021;
FOL000024-FOL000046.
Request No. 4:
Records of booking at Sacramento County Jail of Plaintiff on January 26, 2010.
Response No. 4:
Defendants produce herein documents Bates stamped FOL000022-FOL000023;
FOL000047-FOL000120.
Request No. 5:
Video or audio recordings related to Plaintiff’s January 26, 2012 arrest.
Response No. 5:
Defendants do not have in their possession any video or audio recordings related
to Plaintiff’s January 26, 2010 arrest. The video taken on January 26, 2010 was
deleted shortly after the arrest and not used as evidence in the underlying criminal
case.
2

1

received the ordered production. However, even if plaintiff has now received the subject

2

compact disc, defendants will be required to produce paper copies of the referenced documents.

3

It is axiomatic that prisoners have limited access to electronic means for

4

reviewing discovery responses. The court’s directive concerning such access was limited to

5

video and audio recordings, which cannot be reviewed by any other means. Litigation documents

6

are more accessible and useful to a prisoner when produced in written form rather on a compact

7

disc. As this court has repeatedly noted, defendants requested and obtained an extended period

8

of discovery in this case for the alleged purpose of fully developing the record. The record must

9

be equally accessible to plaintiff.

10

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiff’s “motion for default judgment” and/or sanctions (Dkt. No. 49), is

12

denied without prejudice.

13

2. Defendants shall, within seven days after the filing date of this order, serve

14

plaintiff with actual copies of the documents Bate-stamped FOL000001 - FOL000120, and

15

simultaneously file a declaration with the court demonstrating such service. Defendants shall

16

also address whether plaintiff was provided with any video or audio recordings.

17
18

SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 18, 2012

19
20

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22

lyon0268.disc.frthr

23
24
25
26
3