Gray v. Virga, et al.

Filing 73

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/1/15 ORDERING that Defendants shall submit, within 14 days of this order, a status report regarding plaintiffs access to his medical and mental health records and his C-file. If the defendants choo se to provide plaintiff with copies of the documents, the status report should reflect this and the documents must be produced within 30 days of this order. Plaintiffs motions to compel further discovery responses (ECF Nos. 48 , 51 , 56 ) are gran ted in part, to the extent specified above, as to the following discovery requests: a. Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 5, set 1, submitted to all defendants;b. Request for Production No. 2, set 2, submitted to defendant Virga;c. Interrogatorie s Nos. 1 and 2, set 2, submitted to defendants Starnes and Gam; d. Interrogatory No. 4, set 2, submitted to defendant Gam. The motions to compel are denied in all other respects. The discovery responses and documentation herein ordered must be provi ded toplaintiff within thirty days of this order and defendants must promptly file a notice of compliance with the court. Plaintiffs deadline to respond to the defendants motion for summary judgment shall be extended until thirty days after service of the defendants supplemental responses. In the event plaintiff files his response prior to his receipt of this order, he shall be permitted to file a supplemental response within thirty days of service of defendants' supplemental responses. Plaintiff's pretrial statement (ECF No. 52 ) shall be disregarded. Plaintiffs motions for court orders for inmates Smith, Williams, and Mouton to be present at trial (ECF Nos. 53 , 54 , 55 ) are denied as premature.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BERNARDOS GRAY, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

No. 2:12-cv-03006 KJM AC P

T. VIRGA, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos.

19

48, 51, 56), which defendants have opposed (ECF Nos. 58, 60). Plaintiff has also filed a pretrial

20

statement and three motions for court orders to have inmate witnesses appear at trial. ECF Nos.

21

52, 53, 54, 55. A motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendants (ECF No. 64)

22

and briefing is in progress.1

23

I.

Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Virga, Nielson, Gam, and Starnes violated his Eighth

24
25

Amendment rights when they failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate. ECF No. 1

26

1

27
28

Due to the court’s caseload burdens, the discovery matters in this action were not promptly
addressed prior to expiration of the discovery and motion deadlines. Nevertheless, the court here
authorizes all additional appropriate discovery. Responsive briefing on the pending motion will
be extended accordingly.
1

1

at 3-5. Specifically, he alleges that defendant Virga failed to properly train defendants Gam and

2

Starnes in the mandatory requirements and procedures for cell searches in high risk security units.

3

Id. at 3. He alleges that this resulted in Gam and Starnes failing to conduct a search before

4

housing him with inmate Williams, who then assaulted him with a weapon. Id. Plaintiff alleges

5

that in addition to failing to conduct a mandatory search before placing him in a cell with inmate

6

Williams, defendants Gam and Starnes failed to stop the assault. Id. at 4. He alleges that when

7

the assault began, Gam and Starnes deliberately sprayed plaintiff with pepper spray, rather than

8

his assailant, and did not take any further action until the assault was over. Id. 4-5. Plaintiff

9

alleges that defendant Nielson deliberately approved inmate Williams to house with plaintiff,

10

despite knowing that Williams was “deemed a[n] ‘obvious’ danger to others in the general

11

population.” Id. at 4.

12

II.

Motions to Compel

13

A.

14

Plaintiff has filed four motions to compel. The first motion, filed by the clerk on July 10,

Discovery Dispute

15

2014 (ECF No. 44),2 was denied as premature. ECF No. 50 at 3. Plaintiff’s second motion to

16

compel was held in abeyance pending the filing of the defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s

17

requests.3 Id. In the second motion, plaintiff moves the court for an order compelling all

18

defendants to respond to his requests for production and defendants Gam and Starnes to respond

19

to his requests for interrogatories. ECF No. 48 at 1; ECF No. 48-1. Though plaintiff identifies

20

the specific requests he seeks to put at issue, he fails to provide the defendants’ responses or fully

21

explain the deficiency of each response or how the requests seek information reasonably

22

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Due to plaintiff’s failure to

23

provide the defendants’ responses, the court ordered defendants to file copies of their responses

24

(ECF No. 50), which they did (ECF No. 57).

25

////

26
27
28

2

Plaintiff did not provide a certificate of service indicating the date he delivered the motion to
prison authorities for mailing.
3
Defendants incorrectly characterize the motion as being denied. ECF No. 58 at 2.
2

1

The third motion to compel seeks to compel defendant Virga to respond to a request for

2

production and defendants Gam and Starnes to respond to additional requests for interrogatories.

3

ECF no. 51 at 1-2, 10-13.

4

Plaintiff’s final motion to compel seeks to compel defendant Virga to respond to his

5

requests for production. ECF No. 56 at 1-4. This motion largely overlaps his first motion to

6

compel (ECF No. 48).

7

B.

8

The scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is broad.

9

Standards Governing Discovery

Discovery may be obtained as to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

10

defense—including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any

11

documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any

12

discoverable matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery may be sought of relevant information

13

not admissible at trial “if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

14

admissible evidence.” Id. The court, however, may limit discovery if it is “unreasonably

15

cumulative or duplicative,” or can be obtained from another source “that is more convenient, less

16

burdensome, or less expensive;” or if the party who seeks discovery “has had ample opportunity

17

to obtain the information by discovery;” or if the proposed discovery is overly burdensome. Fed.

18

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii). The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind

19

man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest

20

practicable extent,” U.S. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958), and to narrow and

21

clarify the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947).

22

Where a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, or fails

23

to produce documents requested under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, the party seeking discovery may move

24

for compelled disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. “The party seeking to compel discovery has the

25

burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).

26

Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be

27

prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v.

28

Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794 at * 1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citations omitted). The opposing
3

1

party is “required to carry a heavy burden of showing” why discovery should be denied.

2

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975).

3

C.

4

Defendants argue that the motions to compel should be denied because while the meet and

Failure to Meet and Confer

5

confer requirements of Local Rule 251 have been waived, the requirement to confer under

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) has not. ECF No. 58 at 2; ECF No. 60 at 2. While it is true

7

that the requirement outlined in Rule 37(a) has not been explicitly excused, and the court

8

encourages parties to attempt to resolve disputes prior to seeking court intervention, because of

9

plaintiff’s pro se status the rule will not be enforced here and will not provide grounds for

10

denying the motion.

11

D.

12

As noted above, in his second motion to compel, plaintiff failed to explain the deficiency

Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 48)

13

of each of defendants’ responses or how the requests seek information reasonably calculated to

14

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court held the motion in abeyance pending the

15

filing of defendants’ responses to the discovery requests and no further action was taken once the

16

responses were filed (ECF No. 57). Defendants have not filed any response to plaintiff’s second

17

motion to compel, beyond the discovery responses ordered by the court, presumably because they

18

mistakenly believed the motion had been denied (ECF No. 58 at 2) and a response was not

19

ordered by the court.

20

Since plaintiff’s fourth motion to compel also sought to compel responses to Requests for

21

Production Nos. 2 and 3 from the first set of requests (ECF No. 56) the disputes over these

22

requests will be addressed below in Section II.F in relation to the fourth motion to compel. The

23

remaining disputes in the second motion to compel will be addressed here.

24

RFP No. 4, Set 1: Copies of Plaintiff’s Gray complete medical file.

25

Response: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is
overly broad, burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, not relevant to any claims or
defenses at issue in this lawsuit, and equally available to Plaintiff.

26
27
28

////
4

1

Plaintiff seeks to compel production of his complete medical file. ECF No. 48. In light of

2

plaintiff’s allegation that he was assaulted, plaintiff’s medical records are relevant and reasonably

3

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to plaintiff’s injury. However,

4

his request is overly broad and goes beyond the date of the assault and any medical care he would

5

have subsequently received. Defendants also object on the grounds that plaintiff’s medical

6

records are equally available to plaintiff. Presumably, they are referring to an “Olsen review,”

7

which is an administrative process that provides prisoners with access to nonconfidential

8

information in their central files and medical records.

9

Since plaintiff has access to his medical file, the court will not require defendants to

10

produce these documents. However, in his reply in support of his fourth motion to compel,

11

plaintiff claims that he submitted a request to review his medical records on October 10, 2014,

12

and that as of November 25, 2014, when he submitted his reply, he had not received a response.

13

ECF No. 62 at 8. Defendants will therefore be required to take whatever steps are necessary to

14

ensure that plaintiff is provided adequate access to his medical records during the pendency of

15

this litigation. Alternatively, defendants may choose to produce to plaintiff a copy of his relevant

16

medical records from May 19, 2011, the date of the alleged assault, through the present. The

17

defendants shall file a status report with the court regarding plaintiff’s access to his medical

18

records.

19
20
21
22
23
24

RFP No. 5, Set 1: Copies of Plaintiff’s Gray complete mental
health file.
Response: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is
overly broad, burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, not relevant to any claims or
defenses at issue in this lawsuit, confidential and private, and
equally available to Plaintiff.
Defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s request for his complete mental health file are

25

essentially the same as those made to his request for his medical records. Plaintiff’s complaint

26

seeks compensation for his injuries, which could include mental or emotional injuries. ECF No. 1

27

at 9. Plaintiff’s mental health records are therefore relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to

28

the discovery of admissible evidence. However, this request is also overly broad and goes
5

1

beyond the date of the assault. As with plaintiff’s request for his medical records, the court will

2

not require defendants to produce these documents, since plaintiff has access to them. However,

3

defendants will be required to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that plaintiff is

4

provided adequate access to his mental health records during the pendency of this litigation.

5

Alternatively, defendants may choose to produce to plaintiff a copy of his relevant mental health

6

records from May 19, 2011, the date of the alleged assault, through the present. The defendants

7

shall file a status report with the court regarding plaintiff’s access to his mental health records.

8

Interrogatory No. 10 to Gam and Starnes, Set 1: Why you didn’t
protect Plaintiff Gray from being stabbed by inmate Williams?

9

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
that it is argumentative and assumes facts that have not been
established.

10
11
12

Plaintiff’s complaint revolves around his allegation that defendants failed to protect him.

13

ECF No. 1 at 4-5. Defendants’ defense of this action demonstrates their denial of plaintiff’s

14

theory, and defendants have filed a summary-judgment motion on the grounds that they did not

15

fail to protect plaintiff. Whether defendants failed to protect plaintiff is a question of fact that

16

will be determinative of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. Requiring a further (and

17

predictable) response to this request would be futile, and plaintiff’s motion to compel will be

18

denied as to this interrogatory.

19

Interrogatory No. 15 to Gam, Set 1: Is it possible the weapon you
found in Plaintiff’s clothing came from and was caused by inmate
Williams’ att[e]mpt to strike Plaintiff with it?

20
21

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
that it is vague and ambiguous, calls for speculation, and assumes
facts that have not been established.

22
23

This interrogatory is essentially identical to Interrogatory No. 4, set 2 to Gam, which is

24

more fully addressed by both parties and analyzed below in Section II.E. The motion to compel

25

on this interrogatory will be denied as duplicative in favor of the better briefed motion on

26

Interrogatory No. 4, set 2.

27

////

28

////
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

E.

Third Motion to Compel
RFP No. 2 to Virga, Set 2: Copies of all log recording of searches
conducted in B4 administrative segregation for the whole year of
2011.
Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is
overly broad, vague and ambiguous as to the term “searches,”
burdensome, not relevant to any claims or defenses at issue in this
lawsuit, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendant
responds as follows: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
Defendant does not have documents responsive to this request in his
possession, custody, or control.

Plaintiff argues that he requires the search logs conducted in B4 administrative

10

segregation to show that the required searches were not being conducted. ECF No. 51 at 2.

11

Defendant Virga’s objection that the request is overbroad is well taken. However, plaintiff’s

12

request is relevant since his claims involve an allegation that Virga failed to properly train

13

defendants in the required search procedures and requirements, and search logs would establish

14

whether searches were being conducted as required, and potentially whether Virga was aware of

15

lapses and failed to take corrective action. Defendant’s objection that the request is burdensome

16

is also unsupported by any specific facts regarding the burden this production would create.

17

Moreover, Virga’s summary conclusion that he does not have documents responsive to the

18

request in his possession, custody, or control does not convince the court that these documents do

19

not exist or are not obtainable. Therefore, defendant Virga will be required to supplement his

20

response to this request. Defendant Virga must either produce cell and inmate search logs for B4

21

administrative segregation, to the extent such searches are logged and these records exist, for the

22

six months preceding May 19, 2011, or supplement his response to detail the efforts to locate

23

these records and if available, an explanation as to why these documents are unobtainable or no

24

longer exist (i.e. they have been destroyed pursuant to an applicable retention schedule). If search

25

logs are produced, any information deemed sensitive may be redacted, so long as the logs still

26

reflect the frequency and/or dates of the searches.

27
28

Interrogatory No. 1 to Starnes and Gam, Set 2: Have worked for
CDCR for sometime now, is it not a common play for inmates to
feign problems with their cellmate as a tactic to get strategically
7

1

moved into their intended victim’s cell?

2

Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
that it is argumentative, and calls for speculation.

3
4

Plaintiff posed identical interrogatories to Starnes and Gam, who responded with identical

5

objections. Defendants object to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative and

6

calls for speculation. While the interrogatory is phrased in a somewhat argumentative tone, it

7

does not preclude a response, and defendants’ objection that the interrogatory requires speculation

8

is not well taken. Plaintiff is not asking whether defendants are aware of a specific inmate’s

9

reasons for his actions, and the court finds the request to be reasonably interpreted as asking

10

whether defendants are aware of a broader problem of inmates feigning issues to manipulate their

11

housing for the purposes of carrying out assaults. This could be information learned through

12

interviews with inmates or briefings or memoranda on the issue, if such an issue exists. If this is

13

not a problem the defendants have encountered and they have not received training, briefings, or

14

memoranda on the issue, then they should respond accordingly. Defendants will be required to

15

supplement their response to this interrogatory.

16
17
18

Interrogatory No. 2 to Starnes and Gam, Set 2: How is it
possible for inmate Williams to obtain a weapon in a high risk
security unit, where searches are conducted on a daily bas[i]s?
Response: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the ground
that it calls for speculation.

19
20

Plaintiff again posed identical interrogatories to Starnes and Gam, who responded with

21

identical objections. Defendants object to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is

22

argumentative and calls for speculation. While the interrogatory is phrased in a somewhat

23

argumentative tone, it does not preclude a response, and defendants’ objection that the

24

interrogatory requires speculation is not well taken. Presumably, if plaintiff was in fact stabbed

25

by inmate Williams, an investigation into the assault was conducted. It would be reasonable to

26

assume that part of that investigation would include determining how Williams obtained a

27

weapon. If an investigation was not conducted, defendants are not aware of the results of any

28

investigation, or the investigation was inconclusive, defendants can respond accordingly.
8

1

Defendants will be required to supplement their response to this interrogatory.

2

Interrogatory No. 4 to Gam, Set 2: Is it possible the weapon you
found tangled in Plaintiff clothing came from inmate Williams
attempt to stabbed him with that same weapon?

3
4

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it
calls for speculation, and is argumentative.

5
6

Defendant Gam objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is argumentative and

7

calls for speculation. Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is argumentative and requires

8

speculation will be overruled. It is reasonable to assume that if plaintiff was in fact stabbed by

9

inmate Williams, an investigation into the assault was conducted. It would also be reasonable to

10

assume that part of the investigation would be to determine whether the weapon found in

11

plaintiff’s clothing was involved in the assault. If an investigation was not conducted, defendant

12

is not aware of the results of any investigation, or the investigation was inconclusive, defendant

13

Gam should respond accordingly. Defendant Gam will be required to supplement his response to

14

this interrogatory.

15

F.

16
17
18
19
20

Fourth Motion to Compel (ECF No. 56)
RFP No. 1, Set 1: Copies of all “guidelines” regarding search
procedures for ad-seg. Inmates of their cell and on their person.
Response: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is
overly broad, unlimited as to time, and vague and ambiguous.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants respond as follows:
Attached as exhibit A are the relevant portions of Title 15 regarding
inmate and cell searches.

21

Plaintiff contends that although defendants have produced the regulations related to

22

inmate and cell searches, they have failed to produce “the CSP-Sacramento O.P., memos, minutes

23

of staff meeting, adjustments or enhancements of policy statements, CSP-Sac. prison rules and

24

manuals.” ECF No. 56 at 2. Although defendants objection that the request is overly broad to the

25

extent it is unlimited as to time is well taken, their other objections are not. Plaintiff is clearly

26

seeking policies and procedures regarding inmate and cell searches in administrative segregation.

27

Institutional policies or procedures regarding the implementation of the inmate and cell search

28

regulations are discoverable. Defendants will be ordered to produce CDCR or CSP-Sacramento
9

1

policies and/or procedures, if any, that supplement or implement the inmate and cell search

2

regulations and/or address the frequency or circumstances under which an inmate or a cell should

3

be searched in administrative segregation or generally. Defendant must disclose policies or

4

procedures that were in force on May 19, 2011, the alleged date of the assault.

5

RFP No. 2, Set 1: Copies of any and all inmate Williams CDCR
114-D and RVR-115.

6

Response: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that
it seeks confidential and private information, is overly broad,
unlimited as to time, is not relevant to any claims or defenses at
issue in this lawsuit, burdensome, and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff argues that he requires inmate Williams’ CDCR 114-D and RVR-115 records to

11

establish that prison officials knew Williams was a threat to plaintiff based upon his gang

12

affiliation. ECF No. 56 at 3. Defendants’ objection that the request is overbroad has merit, and

13

to the extent it is overbroad it seeks irrelevant information. However, plaintiff’s complaint

14

includes a claim that defendants knew that Williams was a danger to others when they approved

15

plaintiff to be his cellmate and put him in the same cell. ECF No. 1 at 4. Documentation

16

regarding why Williams was in administrative segregation and rules violations reports could

17

show documented violent behavior that would support plaintiff’s claim, making the request

18

relevant.

19

Defendants also object on the grounds that because the documents requested are rules

20

violation reports and the orders and reasons why Williams was placed in administrative

21

segregation, they are confidential and private. ECF No. 60 at 4. Defendants also argue that under

22

California regulations, plaintiff cannot have access to another inmate’s record. Id. While the

23

California regulations may prevent defendants from producing the documents without a court

24

order, they do not prevent this court from issuing an order requiring their production.

25

For the first time, defendants also raise an objection that production would jeopardize the

26

safety and security of the prison and inmates. Id. They argue that because plaintiff claims he and

27

Williams are from different gangs, producing the documents would entail “risks to the

28

institution’s and the inmates’ safety and security” and they cite to Cordoba v. Dickenson, No.
10

1

CIV S-10-2944 DAD P, 2012 WL 868926 (E.D. Cal., March 13, 2012), in support of their

2

argument. ECF No. 60 at 4.

3

While the court is mindful that security risks can arise in the prison context, it finds that

4

even if timely made, defendants’ security objection is lacking. Cordoba is distinguishable from

5

this case. In Cordoba, defendants presented evidence that the plaintiff and the inmate whose

6

records he sought were designated enemies, and the plaintiff did not specify what type of

7

information he sought or what he expected to find. Cordoba, 2012 WL 868926, at *2. Here,

8

defendants merely argue that there is a security issue because plaintiff claims that he and

9

Williams are from different gangs, without offering any evidence of a threat to either inmate.

10

Additionally, plaintiff has stated that he is attempting to show that there was documentation

11

establishing that Williams was a danger to others, and that defendants should have therefore

12

known not to house them together. Defendants’ objections will therefore be overruled and they

13

will be required to provide CDCR 114-D and RVR-115 records for inmate Williams, subject to

14

the following limitations. Defendants shall produce the RVR-115 forms, which they identify as

15

the orders and reasons for Williams being in administrative segregation, related to Williams’

16

assignment to administrative segregation on May 19, 2011. Defendants shall also produce any

17

CDCR 114-D forms (rules violation report) for Williams for the six months leading up to May 19,

18

2011, that were the result of possessing weapons or assaults or attempted assaults on other

19

inmates or staff. If the CDCR 114-D and RVR-115 forms contain identifying information for

20

inmates other than plaintiff or Williams, defendants may redact that information.

21

RFP No. 3, Set 1: Copies of Plaintiff’s Gray complete C-file.

22

Response: Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is
overly broad, burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, not relevant to any claims or
defenses at issue in this lawsuit, and equally available to the
Plaintiff.

23
24
25

Plaintiff seeks to compel production of his complete C-file. ECF No. 56. He argues that

26

he requires the file because “it gives information of what gang Plaintiff is affiliated with, who is

27

his enemies concern, and etc.” It appears he believes his C-file contains information that would

28

have alerted defendants to the fact that he had an issue with inmate Williams. However, as
11

1

written, his request is overly broad and goes beyond the scope of the issues in the complaint.

2

Defendants also object on the grounds that plaintiff’s C-file is equally available to plaintiff.

3

Presumably, they are referring to an “Olsen review,” which is an administrative process that

4

provides prisoners with access to nonconfidential information in their central files and medical

5

records. Since plaintiff has access to his C-file, the court will not require defendants to produce

6

these documents. However, plaintiff claims that he submitted a request to review his C-file on

7

October 10, 2014, and that as of November 25, 2014, when he submitted his reply, he had not

8

received a response. ECF No. 62 at 8. Defendants will therefore be required to take whatever

9

steps are necessary to ensure that plaintiff is provided adequate access to the relevant portions of

10

his C-file during the pendency of this litigation. Alternatively, defendants may choose to produce

11

to plaintiff a copy of the portions of his C-file that would demonstrate he had an issue with inmate

12

Williams on or before May 19, 2011. Defendants shall file a status report with the court

13

regarding plaintiff’s access to the relevant portions of his C-file.

14

III.

15

Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
In light of the additional responses and documentation ordered by the court, plaintiff’s

16

current deadline to respond to the motion for summary judgment shall be extended. If plaintiff

17

files his response prior to his receipt of this order, he shall be permitted to file a supplemental

18

response within thirty days of service of the defendants’ additional discovery responses.

19

IV.

20

Pretrial Statement and Motions for Court Orders
Plaintiff has filed a pretrial statement and motions for court orders for inmates Smith,

21

Williams, and Mouton to testify at trial. ECF Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55. A trial has not yet been

22

scheduled in this case, and defendants recently filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No.

23

64). Plaintiff’s pretrial statement will therefore be disregarded and his motions for court order

24

denied without prejudice as premature.

25

IV.

Conclusion

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1. Defendants shall submit, within fourteen days of this order, a status report regarding

28

plaintiff’s access to his medical and mental health records and his C-file. If the defendants
12

1

choose to provide plaintiff with copies of the documents, the status report should reflect this and

2

the documents must be produced within thirty days of this order.

3
4

2. Plaintiff’s motions to compel further discovery responses (ECF Nos. 48, 51, 56) are
granted in part, to the extent specified above, as to the following discovery requests:

5

a. Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 5, set 1, submitted to all defendants;

6

b. Request for Production No. 2, set 2, submitted to defendant Virga;

7

c. Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2, set 2, submitted to defendants Starnes and Gam;

8

d. Interrogatory No. 4, set 2, submitted to defendant Gam.

9

3. The motions to compel are denied in all other respects.

10

4. The discovery responses and documentation herein ordered must be provided to

11

plaintiff within thirty days of this order and defendants must promptly file a notice of compliance

12

with the court.

13

5. Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall

14

be extended until thirty days after service of the defendants’ supplemental responses. In the event

15

plaintiff files his response prior to his receipt of this order, he shall be permitted to file a

16

supplemental response within thirty days of service of defendants’ supplemental responses.

17

6. Plaintiff’s pretrial statement (ECF No. 52) shall be disregarded.

18

7. Plaintiff’s motions for court orders for inmates Smith, Williams, and Mouton to be

19

present at trial (ECF Nos. 53, 54, 55) are denied as premature.

20

DATED: April 1, 2015

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13