Womack v. Windsor, et al
Filing
71
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/27/2017 ORDERING plaintiff's 52 motion to compel is DENIED; plaintiff's 64 , 66 motion to compel is PARTIALLY GRANTED; plaintiff's 62 motion under Rule 56(d) is PART IALLY GRANTED; within 21 days, defendants shall file their response in accordance with this order, plaintiff may file a reply 14 days thereafter; defendants' 60 motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice; defendant Dr. Lee's 51 motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RODNEY JEROME WOMACK,
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-0533 MCE KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
J. WINDSOR, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff has filed multiple
18
motions, which the court addresses below.
19
I. Background
20
On June 22, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff’s
21
motion to compel discovery was denied on September 7, 2016. (ECF No. 44.) Discovery closed
22
on July 29, 2016. (ECF No. 30.) On October 26, 2016, plaintiff filed a second motion to compel
23
discovery seeking the production of documents. (ECF No. 52.)
24
On December 15, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On December
25
30, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to oppose the motion for summary
26
judgment. On January 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a document styled “Discovery is Needed to
27
Oppose Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.” (ECF No. 64.) Defendants filed an
28
opposition, and plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 65, 67.)
1
1
On February 10, 2017, plaintiff filed a third motion for an order compelling discovery, to
2
which he appended his January 18, 2017 filing. (ECF No. 66.) Defendants filed an opposition
3
and seek sanctions for plaintiff’s untimely and repeated discovery motions, and plaintiff filed a
4
reply. (ECF Nos. 68, 69.)
5
II. Motions to Compel
6
A. Standards
7
Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may
8
move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
9
37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or
10
incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have
11
‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule
12
of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting
13
Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).
14
Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are the
15
subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the
16
response is deficient, (4) why defendants’ objections are not justified, and (5) why the
17
information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v.
18
Ramirez, 2016 WL 3196738 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, at *4
19
(E.D. Cal. 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his
20
motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought
21
is relevant and why defendant’s objections are not justified.”). The reach of Rule 34 of the
22
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs requests for production, “extends to all relevant
23
documents, tangible things and entry upon designated land or other property.” Clark v. Vega
24
Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472-73 (D. Nev. 1998), citing 8A C. Wright & A. Miller,
25
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2206, at 381.
26
The purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can
27
obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” U.S. ex rel. O’Connell v.
28
Chapman University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted).
2
1
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery
2
permitted:
3
4
5
6
7
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to
the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
8
Id. “Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of Seattle,
9
147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of
10
establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the
11
party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and
12
the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL
13
1390794 at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (internal citation omitted).
14
B. Discussion
15
On October 26, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents.
16
Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that the discovery request was untimely served on
17
October 10, 2016, after discovery closed on July 29, 2016. Defendants are correct. Under the
18
scheduling order, all discovery requests were to be propounded sixty days prior to the close of
19
discovery. Moreover, any motions to compel discovery were to be filed before the discovery
20
deadline expired on July 29, 2016. Plaintiff’s motion and underlying discovery request were
21
untimely; thus, his motion to compel production of documents is denied.
22
On February 10, 2017, plaintiff renewed his motion to compel discovery, but now claims
23
that he will not survive summary judgment without the documents sought in his exhibit B,
24
specifically the 10 pages of supporting documents to Appeal No. 14-28252, because the
25
documents “are the absolute foundation of plaintiff’s entire civil case.” (ECF No. 66 at 2.)
26
Plaintiff claims that the missing 10 pages are the same medical records defendant Mahoney
27
referred to in Mahoney’s declaration supporting the pending motion for summary judgment.
28
(ECF No. 66 at 7, citing 60-6 at 2:8-25.) Plaintiff declares that these documents “clearly report
3
1
that in Dr. Giza’s professional opinion, that if plaintiff’s left ankle is left untreated then the delay
2
can result in further significant injury.” (ECF No. 66 at 8.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Defendants again object on the grounds that plaintiff failed to meet and confer or timely
request discovery responses.
To the extent plaintiff intended his motion to be construed as a motion for continuance,
Rule 56(d) provides:
(d) When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a
nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified
reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the
court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
11
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take
discovery; or
12
(3) issue any other appropriate order.
13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). “A party requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) must identify by
14
affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would
15
preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100
16
(9th Cir. 2006). Additionally, plaintiff must make some showing of diligence, that he sought the
17
requested information during the discovery period, or that there is good reason he has not been
18
able to obtain the information before now. See Landmark Dev. Corp. v. Chambers Corp., 752
19
F.2d 369, 372 (9th Cir. 1985 ).
20
Here, the record reflects that as early as September 9, 2015, when plaintiff signed his
21
opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff claimed that defendants removed U. C.
22
Davis medical documentation from plaintiff’s 602 appeals. (ECF No. 20 at 10-11.) However, the
23
record does not demonstrate plaintiff’s diligence, for two reasons.
24
First, because the documents plaintiff seeks are referred to as “supporting documents” to
25
his health care appeals, it appears that plaintiff had these documents in June and September of
26
2014, because he appended them to his appeals. (ECF No. 20 at 16, 18.) Plaintiff does not
27
explain his failure to retain copies of documents appended to his appeals, particularly where he
28
now argues the documents are critical to rebut summary judgment.
4
1
Second, plaintiff did not timely seek the missing documents through discovery. In his
2
motion, plaintiff does not explain his efforts to obtain such documents from his prison medical
3
file. If the records were not available to plaintiff through an Olsen review of his prison medical
4
file, plaintiff could have subpoenaed the records from U.C. Davis, or he could have sought
5
production of the records from defendants. The discovery order issued on April 7, 2016, yet
6
plaintiff did not file a motion to compel production of these ten pages of U.C. Davis medical
7
records until October 26, 2016. Indeed, his first request for production of documents directed to
8
defendant Windsor only sought U.C. Davis Medical Facility records pertaining to plaintiff’s 2009
9
and 2015 left-ankle surgeries, which were provided by defendants. (ECF No. 39 at 7.) Plaintiff
10
sought all medical records in possession of High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), as well as “any
11
and all 602 appeals, complaints, and grievances that plaintiff filed while incarcerated at HDSP.”
12
(ECF No. 39 at 7.) However, defendants objected on overbreadth grounds, and plaintiff’s motion
13
to compel further responses was denied. (ECF No. 44 at 3.) Plaintiff did not seek reconsideration
14
of the order, or file a motion to reopen discovery.
15
On the other hand, in his reply, plaintiff now declares under penalty of perjury that on four
16
separate occasions, he submitted institution “request forms” to the records department requesting
17
these documents. (ECF No. 69 at 2.) Plaintiff claims that he did not receive a response or an
18
acknowledgment that the request forms were submitted. (Id.) Because plaintiff’s argument was
19
contained in his reply, defendants were deprived of an opportunity to respond.
20
That said, the record suggests relevant documents are missing. With their motion to
21
dismiss, defendants appended copies of plaintiff’s appeals HDSP HC 14028252 and HDSP HC
22
14028473. (ECF No. 19-1 at 12-21, 23-30.) Both appeals reference supporting documents that
23
are not appended to the copies filed with the court. (ECF No. 19-1 at 14 references 10 pages of
24
supporting documents; ECF No. 19-1 at 25 references 3 pages of supporting documents.) It is
25
unclear why the supporting documents were not submitted with defendants’ motion to dismiss.
26
But the record demonstrates that plaintiff alerted defendants that the documents were missing in
27
his opposition to the motion, and claimed defendants removed the documents from the appeals.
28
(ECF No. 20 at 10-11.) Plaintiff claimed that the medical documents removed were:
5
U.C. Davis medical documentation from plaintiff’s first surgery and
all the medical specifics relating to his first surgery, and orthopedic
surgeon Eric Giza and Jonathan G. Eastman, M.D.’s
recommendations for plaintiff’s second surgery, “the de novo
cartilage implantation,” and their medical opinions as to the
constant pain plaintiff will be suffering from if he [doesn’t] have
the de novo cartilage implantation surgery.
1
2
3
4
5
(ECF No. 20 at 11.) Defendants did not address plaintiff’s allegation or the missing
6
documentation in their reply.1 (ECF No. 23.)
7
“District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of
8
litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606,
9
616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th
10
Cir. 2011)). In addition to this broad discretion, and notwithstanding the procedures discussed
11
above, plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant. Thus, to the extent possible, the court
12
endeavors to resolve motions on their merits. Hunt, 672 F.3d at 616; Surfvivor Media, Inc. v.
13
Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751
14
(9th Cir. 2002).
Therefore, because it appears these documents are relevant and missing from the appeals
15
16
previously submitted to the court, defendants are directed to file with the court and provide to
17
plaintiff the supporting documents appended to appeals HDSP HC 14028252 (10 pages) and
18
HDSP HC 14028473 (3 pages). If the supporting documents are not appended to these appeals,
19
defendants shall file a declaration addressing their absence. Moreover, if the supporting
20
documents are not appended to the appeals, defendants shall address whether plaintiff’s medical
21
records from U.C. Davis have been provided to plaintiff either voluntarily or through discovery.
22
Plaintiff may respond to defendants’ filing within fourteen days thereafter. Plaintiff is cautioned,
23
however, that discovery is not re-opened, and he should file no further motions to compel
24
discovery.
In light of this ruling, plaintiff’s motion for continuance under rule 56(d) is partially
25
26
27
28
granted. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to its renewal
1
To be fair, the motion to dismiss was not on administrative exhaustion grounds, so the
documentation appended to the appeals was not at issue.
6
1
following resolution of the production of these missing documents. Defendants are not required
2
to re-file the motion and accompanying documents, but may simply re-notice the motion.
3
III. Sanctions
4
Defendants seek an award of $680.00 in expenses incurred in preparing their opposition to
5
plaintiff’s fourth motion. However, given plaintiff’s declaration that he has been unable to obtain
6
these documents from the prison records department, his mental health status, the delay in
7
resolution of his motions to amend or supplement the complaint,2 as well as the above ruling,
8
defendants’ request for sanctions is denied. However, plaintiff is cautioned that he should not
9
repeatedly file motions, but must wait for the court to rule.
10
IV. Motion for Protective Order
11
On October 27, 2016, defendant Lee filed a motion for protective order. Defendant Lee
12
argues that good cause exists to stay the litigation against Dr. Lee based on medical concerns.
13
However, the sole authority cited for the protective order is Rule 26(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules
14
of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the motion for summary judgment filed subsequent to the motion
15
for protective order appears to have been brought on behalf of all defendants, including Dr. Lee.
16
Because Dr. Lee is represented by counsel, and the motion for summary judgment has been
17
denied without prejudice, the undersigned denies Dr. Lee’s motion for protective order without
18
prejudice to its renewal, if necessary, following resolution of any renewed motion for summary
19
judgment.
20
V. Conclusion
21
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
22
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 52) is denied.
23
2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF Nos. 64 & 66) is partially granted.
24
3. Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 56(d) (ECF No. 62) is partially granted.
25
////
26
2
27
28
The Eastern District has noted that it “has the highest weighted filings per judgeship in the
country.” Hammond v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 1668209, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2011).
While the court attempts to timely resolve all motions, delays are inevitable given the court’s
heavy caseload.
7
1
2
3
4
5
4. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, defendants shall file their response
to this order, as set forth above; plaintiff may file a reply fourteen days thereafter.
5. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 60) is denied without prejudice
to its renewal.
6. Defendant Dr. Lee’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 51) is denied without
6
prejudice.
7
Dated: March 27, 2017
8
9
/woma0533.mtc
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?