Mayfield v. Orozco, et al.
Filing
140
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/23/16 ORDERING that the Plaintiffs' motions to compel, ECF Nos. 131 and 132 , are GRANTED; Defendants shall produce all outstanding documents and supplemental responses to Interrogatori es, as specified above, within seven days; Dr. Sokolv shall be produced for a deposition not to exceed four (4) hours on a day and ata time convenient to the parties no later than 10/31/16; and Ms. Javist shall be produced for a deposition not to exceed two (2) hours on a day and at a time convenient to the parties, no later than 10/31/16; and All discovery produced or conducted pursuant to this order will be deemed timely. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
JAMES J. MAYFIELD, JAMES
ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR., and TERRI
MAYFIELD,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
17
18
19
No. 2:13-cv-02499 JAM AC
ORDER
v.
IVAN OROZCO, SHERIFF
SCOTTJONES, JAMES LEWIS,
RICKPATTISON, COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA DAVIS
HEALTHSYSTEM, DR. GREGORY
SOKOLOV, DR. ROBERT HALS, and
Does 1-5,
Defendants.
20
21
22
Plaintiffs’ motions to compel discovery, ECF Nos. 131 & 132, came on for hearing before
23
the undersigned on October 12, 2016. Lori Rifkin and Joshua Piovia-Scott appeared on behalf of
24
plaintiffs. Nicole Cahill appeared on behalf of the Sacramento County defendants, and Bianca
25
Watts appeared on behalf of the UC defendants.
26
////
27
////
28
1
1
2
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff James J. Mayfield, together with his wife and son, sue Sacramento County and
3
various Sacramento County Jail correctional staff, and UC Davis Health Services and related jail
4
psychiatric staff, for failure to protect, failure to provide medical care, and related claims. The
5
claims arise from injuries plaintiff suffered as the result of a suicide attempt made in the
6
Sacramento County jail when he was a detainee.
7
THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL
8
Plaintiffs seek to compel (1) further depositions of Dr. Gregory Sokolov, a psychiatrist
9
who is the Jail Psychiatric Services Medical Director, and Ms. Andrea Javist, an LCSW who is
10
the Jail Psychiatric Services Program Manager; (2) supplemental answers to Interrogatories and a
11
further production of documents that the County failed to produce earlier after hearing and order;
12
and (3) production of a recently disclosed 2016 jail audit report.
13
STANDARDS
14
The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules is broad. Discovery may be obtained as
15
to “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to
16
the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action . . . and
17
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R.
18
Civ. P. (“Rule”) 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in
19
evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact
20
more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in
21
determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401.
22
Under Rule 34(a)(1) “[a] party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of
23
Rule 26(b): (1) to produce and permit the party making the request to inspect, copy, test, or
24
sample the following items in the responding party’s possession, custody or control . . ; any
25
designated documents or electronically stored information.” In responding to discovery requests
26
“a party need not have actual possession of documents to be deemed in control of them.” Clark v.
27
Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D.Nev.1998) (quoting Estate of Young v. Holmes,
28
134 F.R.D. 291, 294 (D.Nev.1991). “A party that has a legal right to obtain certain documents is
2
1
deemed to have control of the documents.” Clark, 81 F.R.D. at 472.
2
Pursuant to Rule 37(a), a party propounding discovery or taking a deposition may seek an
3
order “compelling disclosure or discovery.” Under Rule 37(a)(3)(B) such a motion may be made
4
if “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or fails to produce
5
documents or fails to respond that inspection will be permitted . . . as requested under Rule 34.”
6
DISCUSSION
7
A. Production of the 2016 Jail Audit
8
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 [“PREA”] was enacted by Congress to address
9
concerns about the sexual assault of prisoners. 42 U.S.C. § 15601 et seq. The Act established a
10
grant-making and regulatory regime designed to address sexual assault and related inmate safety
11
issues in prisons and jails. 42 U.S.C. §§ 15606, 15607. The Sacramento County Jail was audited
12
under this program in 2016 (as well as in other years), and plaintiffs seek access to the 2016
13
Report.
14
Defendant County refuses to produce the report, on several grounds. First, they argue that
15
the 2016 Report did not include any review of the Mayfield incident, which occurred in 2013.
16
Second, it is only an Interim Report and therefore subject to change. The Jail will have an
17
opportunity to develop a corrective action plan for any deficiencies identified, and could even
18
appeal any negative action. Accordingly, defendants argue that the document is irrelevant, that it
19
would not be admissible at trial, and that its use in this litigation would be prejudicial to the
20
County.1
21
Although the defendants’ position on admissibility may prove to be correct once the
22
document has been produced for examination, admissibility is not the issue at this stage of the
23
proceedings. Plaintiffs argued that this Report, even though it was drafted long after the 2013
24
attempted suicide attempt at the center of this case, would potentially be relevant to meeting
25
plaintiffs’ burden under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658
26
1
27
Defendants also note that the Report was not provided to the County until after the original
Request for Production of Documents had been both propounded and responded to by the County.
That does not matter, as the duty to supplement discovery responses applies.
28
3
1
(1978), and to prove punitive damages. The court agrees. Evidence post-dating the Mayfield
2
incident could be admissible on the issue of Monell liability. See Henry v. County of Shasta, 132
3
F.3d 512, 518, 519 (9th Cir. 1997) (evidence of incidents both preceding and following the
4
incident at issue may be used to establish the existence of a policy or custom of deliberate
5
indifference to inmate rights); Medina v. County of San Diego, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1135672
6
(S.D. Cal. 2014) (documents showing notice or ratification of prior actions may be the only way
7
to prove policy, custom or habits under Monell). Moreover, evidence of subsequent events may
8
prove either aggravating or mitigating for purposes of a punitive damages claim. See Swinton v.
9
Potomac Corp, 270 F.3d 794, 810, 812 (9th Cir. 2001); Ogilvie v. International Playtex, 821 F.2d
10
11
12
1438, 1446 (10th Cir. 1987).
For these reasons, the court ruled from the bench on October 12, 2016, that the County
must produce the 2016 PREA Audit Report to plaintiff’s within 24 hours of the hearing.
13
B. Production Of Documents Previously Ordered Produced
14
In their moving papers, plaintiffs asserted that certain documents the UC defendants had
15
previously been ordered to produce, see ECF No. 117, had not been provided. The discovery
16
requests at issue here (plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 22, Interrogatory No. 23, and Request for
17
Production No. 192) all seek information about the creation of a “Self-Inflicted Injury Log” that
18
was generated regarding the suicide attempt of an inmate other than plaintiff. The undersigned
19
has previously overruled the defendants’ objections to discovery of this matter. ECF No. 117 at
20
3-5. To the extent that defendants have not yet produced responsive documents and responses to
21
the interrogatories, they shall do so forthwith. Responses to these discovery requests shall be
22
subject to the Protective Order in place in this case.
23
C. Follow-Up Discovery Related to Sokolov and Javist Depositions
24
Defendant Gregory Sokolov, M.D., medical director of Jail Psychiatric Services, and
25
Andrea Javist, LCSW, program manager for Jail Psychiatric Services, were deposed between
26
June 24 and August 10, 2016. The depositions revealed the existence of documents not
27
previously produced to plaintiff, including an Incident Report that was used by the individual
28
defendants in their follow-up meeting regarding the Mayfield suicide attempt. This Incident
4
1
Report was produced to plaintiffs following the depositions, along with other documents not
2
previously disclosed which related to plaintiff Mayfield’s medical and psychiatric treatment
3
before his suicide attempt, and the follow-up treatment and quality assessment he received after
4
the attempt. The August 16, 2015, cover letter from defendant’s counsel that accompanied the
5
post-deposition production referred to additional incident reports that would be “forthcoming” but
6
which were not (according to plaintiffs) produced prior to the filing of the instant motion to
7
compel. Late produced documents did, however, include an appointment log showing how many
8
times and when plaintiff had been seen by mental health and medical staff, and a report produced
9
by a forensic psychiatric consultant retained by the County, Dr. Gage, dated June 8, 2016,
10
assessing the mental health program at the jail. Plaintiff seeks (1) compelled production of all
11
documents identified during the previous depositions, or related to them; and (2) further
12
depositions of Dr. Sokolov and Ms. Javist to examine them about the content of these previously
13
undisclosed documents.
14
Defendants’ objections to these requests are overruled. If any of the documents referred
15
to during the previous depositions or in counsel’s latter dated August 16, 2015 have not yet been
16
produced to plaintiffs, they shall be produced forthwith. Moreover, in light of the circumstances
17
of the case and the history of discovery, the court finds good cause to permit the further
18
depositions of Dr. Sokolov and Ms. Javist. These depositions are limited to examination
19
regarding the late-disclosed documents identified by plaintiffs and the matters addressed by those
20
documents. Defendant’s objection to examination regarding the Gage Report is overruled.
21
D. Timeliness of Discovery
22
The court overrules defendants’ objections that plaintiffs brought their motion to compel
23
too close to the discovery deadline. Having considered the course of discovery and the
24
circumstances of the case as a whole, the undersigned finds that plaintiffs brought their motion
25
within a reasonable time and in time to be resolved within the applicable deadline(s). In light of
26
the court’s delay in issuing this order, all discovery produced or conducted pursuant to this order
27
will be deemed timely.
28
////
5
1
CONCLUSION
2
For the reasons explained above and at the hearing on the motion, IT IS HEREBY
3
ORDERED as follows:
4
1. Plaintiffs’ motions to compel, ECF Nos. 131 and 132, are GRANTED;
5
2. Defendants shall produce all outstanding documents and supplemental responses to
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Interrogatories, as specified above, within seven days;
3. Dr. Sokolv shall be produced for a deposition not to exceed four (4) hours on a day and at
a time convenient to the parties no later than October 31, 2016; and
4. Ms. Javist shall be produced for a deposition not to exceed two (2) hours on a day and at a
time convenient to the parties, no later than October 31, 2016.
5. All discovery produced or conducted pursuant to this order will be deemed timely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 23, 2016
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?