Atcherley v. Hanna, et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/06/15 ordering plaintiff's motion to compel further production of documents 61 is granted; if defendants CDCR and HDSP have not already done so, they shall, within 14 days after the filing date of this order, produce appropriately redacted copies of the I.S.T. transcripts of defendants Hanna, Owens, Gricewich, Wilson, Garcia, Rivas and Payne. Plaintiff's motion for a court order 62 is denied without prejudice as moot; the additional matters raised in plaintiff's motion are denied without prejudice. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

12

No. 2:13-cv-0576 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. HANNA, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s Second Amended

19

Complaint, ECF No. 39-1, on plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the

20

Rehabilitation Act, and the First and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

21

against defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), High Desert

22

State Prison (HDSP), and individual defendants Gricewich, Hanna, Owens, Garcia, Rivas, Wilson

23

and Payne. Presently pending are two motions for discovery filed by plaintiff, to which

24

defendants have responded. The discovery deadline in this action remains June 12, 2015. See

25

ECF No. 59.

26

Pursuant to his initial motion, filed February 27, 2015, plaintiff moves to compel

27

defendants CDCR and HDSP to produce documents responsive to plaintiff’s Requests for

28

Production of Documents, served November 4, 2014. ECF No. 61. At issue are the I.S.T.
1

1

training reports of the individual defendants. Defendants CDCR and HDSP initially objected to

2

each subject request. See ECF No. 61, Exs. A, B. However, on March 23, 2015, in response to

3

plaintiff’s motion, defendants filed a “Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion to Compel (ECF

4

No. 61),” wherein they state that they will provide the requested documents in redacted form,

5

ECF No. 65 at 2:

6

In light of the reasons stated in the Motion to Compel (ECF No.
61), Defendants CDCR and HDSP do not oppose this Motion to
Compel and agree to produce redacted copies of the I.S.T.
Transcripts of Defendants Hanna, Owens, Gricewich, Wilson,
Garcia, and Rivas.

7
8
9

Plaintiff did not reply to defendants’ response, which reasonably supports an inference

10

that plaintiff is satisfied with it. Defendants’ description of the subject documents (correctional

11

officer training materials and records) indicates that there are valid reasons for their limited

12

redaction. However, because defendants have not specified that they have already produced the

13

redacted copies, including the records for defendant Payne,1they will be ordered to do so.

14

Pursuant to his second motion, also filed February 27, 2015, plaintiff moves for a court

15

order that deems admitted each of plaintiff’s First Requests for Admission served on HDSP on

16

November 11, 2014. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff challenged HDSP’s objections to the requests served

17

December 29, 2014. However, after the court extended discovery, by order filed December 30,

18

2014, HDSP served substantive responses to the requests, on March 22, 2015, subject to its

19

previously-stated objections. See ECF No. 64, Ex. B.

20

Plaintiff has not replied to defendants’ response to this motion, which reasonably supports

21

an inference that plaintiff is satisfied with defendants’ responses to his Requests for Admission.

22

Therefore, this motion will be denied without prejudice as moot. The secondary matters raised in

23

the motion – challenging defendants’ affirmative defenses and suggestion that they may seek to

24

file an amended answer – are premature and therefore denied without prejudice.

25

////

26

////

27
28

1

Defendant Payne’s name is missing from defendants’ response, without explanation; review of
the docket and the parties’ filings fails to indicate a reason why his records should be excluded.
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further production of documents, ECF No. 61, is granted;

3

if defendants CDCR and HDSP have not already done so, they shall, within fourteen days after

4

the filing date of this order, produce appropriately redacted copies of the I.S.T. Transcripts of

5

defendants Hanna, Owens, Gricewich, Wilson, Garcia, Rivas and Payne.

6

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order, ECF No. 62, is denied without prejudice as moot;

7

the additional matters raised in plaintiff’s motion are denied without prejudice.

8

DATED: April 6, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3