Padilla v. Beard et al
Filing
98
ORDER granting 89 Motion for Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/13/16. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JERMAINE PADILLA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-1118 KJM CKD
v.
ORDER
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents came on regularly for hearing
17
18
January 13, 2016.1 Lori Rifkin appeared for plaintiff. Diana Esquivel appeared for defendants.
19
Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel,
20
and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Plaintiff represents that the excerpts of the video of plaintiff’s cell extraction used for
21
22
the regional training of Wardens and other high level officials is not available by subpoena due to
23
a claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Gonzalez v. Hickman, 466 F.Supp.2d 1226 (E.D.
24
Cal. 2006) (Eleventh Amendment barred enforcement of subpoenas); cf. Allen v. Woodford, 544
25
F.Supp.2d 1074 (E.D. Cal 2008) (court found that because no judgment would be issued against
26
27
28
1
After hearing on the motion to compel, the court recessed to chambers for an informal
discussion regarding the status of plaintiff’s continued deposition and the setting of a settlement
conference.
1
1
the State that could have any conceivable effect on the State treasury, Eleventh Amendment does
2
not apply to nor bar enforcement of the subpoenas). In the circumstances of this case, the court
3
finds defendant Davey has sufficient control over the excerpted video such that production should
4
be compelled.
Due to plaintiff’s current mental status, the court, after discussion with counsel, has
5
6
determined that the continued deposition of plaintiff should be held in abeyance at this time.
7
Discovery will be left open so as to allow the reconvening of plaintiff’s deposition after his
8
mental status has improved.
9
10
It appears to the court that a settlement conference would aid in the just resolution of this
action. The parties shall therefore advise the court of their available dates.
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 89) is granted. Defendant Davey shall produce, no
13
later than January 22, 2016, the excerpted video of plaintiff’s cell extraction and any training
14
materials associated therewith.
15
2. The amended status pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 78) is amended as follows:
16
Discovery is left open until September 30, 2016 solely for the purposes of completing three
17
further hours of plaintiff's deposition. Plaintiff shall not testify at trial if plaintiff does not submit
18
to further deposition by September 30, 2016. In the absence of plaintiff submitting to further
19
deposition prior to May 13, 2016, no affidavit shall be submitted by plaintiff, in opposition to any
20
motion for summary judgment filed by defendants, which addresses issues not previously covered
21
in plaintiff’s deposition testimony taken on October 9, 2015. Any further deposition, limited to
22
three hours, shall take place at the Sacramento federal courthouse, on a date coordinated with the
23
court’s courtroom deputy, so as to allow court supervision of said deposition.
24
3. No later than January 27, 2016, the parties shall advise the court by e-mailing the
25
courtroom deputy of the undersigned of their available dates for settlement conference and their
26
preference, if any, of settlement judge. The court encourages the attendance at the settlement
27
/////
28
/////
2
1
conference of Patrick McKinney, Chief Counsel and Legal Affairs Assistant Secretary,
2
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to aid in any resolution of this matter.
3
Dated: January 13, 2016
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
4 padilla1118.mtc.oah
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?