Harrell v. Walmart et al

Filing 100

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/6/18 DENYING 99 Motion to Protect Due Process and 66 Motion to Compel; DENYING as MOOT 93 Motion for Extension and 86 Motion to Strike; and VACATING 76 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to re-filing and service together with a Rand notice. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA NEIL HARRELL,

12

No. 2:15-cv-00576-JAM-AC

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

MICHELLE BELYEA,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to this

17
18

court for pretrial proceedings by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21).1 On June 23, 2016, the

19

district judge presiding over this case authorized plaintiff, who is also proceeding in forma

20

pauperis, to proceed with his first amended complaint against defendant Michelle Belyea. ECF

21

No. 24. Now pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 66),

22

defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 76), plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No.

23

86), plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to reply to defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s

24

motion to strike (ECF No. 93), and plaintiff’s motion to protect due process (ECF No. 99).

25

////

26
27
28

1

Although plaintiff indicates that he is in custody, this matter is proceeding under the authority
of Local Rule 302(c)(21), rather than Local Rule 302(c)(17), because plaintiff does not seek
habeas relief, nor does he challenge the conditions of his confinement.

1
2

I.

Relevant Procedural Background

The case arises out of plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution for commercial burglary (Penal

3

Code § 459) and probation violation (Penal Code § 1203.2). Plaintiff was arrested for these

4

crimes on April 17, 2014. ECF No. 15 at 10-24. The criminal case was ultimately dismissed. Id.

5

at 11. Plaintiff filed this civil case on March 13, 2015 against defendants Rashad Figaro,

6

Walmart, Fairfield Police Department, Solano County District Attorney’s Office, Natasha

7

Jontulovich, and District Attorney Donald A. Du Bain. ECF No. 1 at 3.

8

Upon screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2), the court found plaintiff alleged facts

9

to potentially support three claims: Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest; Fourth Amendment Due

10

Process (based upon false imprisonment); and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process (based upon

11

malicious prosecution). ECF No. 8 at 3. However, the court found that complaint stated a claim

12

against defendant Michelle Belyea only. ECF No. 8 at 6. The court permitted the unlawful arrest

13

claim to go forward against Belyea, while dismissing the false imprisonment and malicious

14

prosecution claims against her, with leave to amend. Id. at 4. Plaintiff was given 30 days to

15

amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against the remaining defendants, should he wish

16

to do so. Id. at 6.

17

Following an extension of time, plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”)

18

alleging claims against Belyea, as well as Rashad Figaro, Garrison, and Judge Bowers. ECF No.

19

15. Upon screening of the FAC, the court found that plaintiff alleged facts that could potentially

20

support three claims: Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest; Fourth Amendment Due Process (based

21

upon false imprisonment); and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process (based upon malicious

22

prosecution). ECF No. 20 at 3. The court dismissed defendants Rashid Figaro, Garrison, and

23

Judge Bowers with prejudice and ordered plaintiff’s FAC served with respect to defendant Belyea

24

on two grounds: (1) Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest; and (2) Fourteenth Amendment

25

malicious prosecution (only based upon the limited allegation that Belyea falsified a police

26

report). ECF No. 20 at 4-7, ECF No. 24.

27
28

Plaintiff’s FAC was served upon Belyea (ECF No. 39), who filed an answer on April 18,
2017. ECF No. 40. On January 18, 2019, the court issued a revised scheduling order setting a
2

1

discovery deadline of May 9, 2018. ECF No. 52. A dispositive motions deadline was set for July

2

9, 2018. Id.

3
4

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Protect Due Process

Plaintiff filed a motion notifying the court that through studying his own genealogy, he

5

recently discovered that he has a relative that was in North America before the United States was

6

formed and that his eighth-great grandfather is “Sir Bathwater” of Wales, England. ECF No. 99 at

7

1. Plaintiff asks the court to provide him with more information regarding his family genealogy

8

to protect his rights to due process. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s memorandum indicates he believes he is

9

entitled to some financial inheritance from his relatives’ estates. Id. at 3-11. Because plaintiff’s

10

motion is entirely irrelevant to this case and does not seek any relief with respect to the remaining

11

defendant, it is DENIED.

12

III.

Motion to Compel

13

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to his requests for production numbered 3, 4, and 5.

14

ECF No. 66 at 2. Plaintiff’s RFP No. 3 asks defendant to produce two document affidavits from

15

management persons at Walmart located on N. Texas St., Fairfield, CA, stating facts about the

16

operations, rules, and policies about dressing rooms for customers. ECF No. 66 at 2. Plaintiff’s

17

RFP No. 4 requests all documents, pleadings, orders, materials, records and files filed in this case.

18

Id. Plaintiff’s RFP No. 5 seeks defendant’s personnel file at the Fairfield Police Department to

19

include pleadings and materials about defendant that may contain Brady material. Id.

20

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED because defendant has served adequate

21

responses. With respect to RFPs 3 and 4, defendant served a response stating she had no

22

responsive documents; defendant does not have access to Walmart’s internal documents, and

23

there are no Brady related materials in defendant’s personnel file. ECF No. 70 at 3. In the

24

absence of evidence to the contrary, plaintiff is required to accept defendant’s responses to these

25

requests that, despite a diligent search, no responsive documents exist. See e.g., Mootry v. Flores,

26

2014 WL 3587839, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (“Defendants cannot be required to produce documents

27

that do not exist. Absent evidence to the contrary, which has not been presented, Plaintiff is

28

required to accept Defendants’ response no such documents exist.”); accord, Holt v. Nicholas,
3

1

2014 WL 250340, *4 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (“Absent evidence to the contrary, which has not been

2

presented, Plaintiff is required to accept Defendant’s amended response that no such documents

3

responsive to his request exist.”).

4

With respect to RFP No. 5, defendant asserts she responded to the request by providing a

5

complete copy of the record of the court’s file, inclusive of approximately 275 pages. ECF No.

6

70 at 3. While plaintiff now contends that he is entitled to a copy of his own deposition

7

transcript, defendant correctly responds that she is not under any obligation to produce the

8

transcript, which is equally available to the plaintiff, albeit at cost. See, Rodgers v. Martin, No.

9

1:12-CV-01686-AWI, 2014 WL 4344499, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014) (Seng, J.). Plaintiff

10

may not use the discovery process to obtain free copies of documents that are equally available to

11

him. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure direct deposition officers to provide a copy of a

12

deposition transcript to the deponent or any party upon payment of reasonable charges. Fed. R.

13

Civ. P. 30(f)(3). Thus, defendant has adequately responded to plaintiff’s RFP No. 5 and need not

14

provide plaintiff with a copy of his deposition transcript.

15
16
17

For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 66) is DENIED.
IV.

Motion to Strike and Motion for Extension of Time

Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration of Michelle Belyea filed in support of her motion

18

for summary judgement. ECF No. 86. He also seeks additional time to respond to defendant’s

19

opposition to this request. ECF No. 93. These motions are DENIED without prejudice as

20

MOOT, because the summary judgment is being vacated for the reasons now explained.

21
22

V. Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 76) must be VACATED because

23

defendant failed to file a Rand Notice with their motion. As defendant was warned in the Order

24

Directing Service in this case, in the event “defendant moves for summary judgment, defendant

25

must contemporaneously serve with the motion, but in a separate document, a copy of the

26

attached Rand Notice. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland,

27

154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998).” ECF No. 35 at 4. Because defendant did not file a Rand

28

Notice, her motion for summary judgment cannot be considered at this time. Accordingly, it will
4

1

be VACATED without prejudice to re-filing in compliance with defendant’s obligations under

2

Rand. Defendant may file the same motion for summary judgment, exhibits, and declaration, but

3

she must do so contemporaneously with a Rand Notice.

4

VI. Conclusion

5

For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby ORDERED that:

6

1. Plaintiff’s motion to protect due process (ECF No. 99) is DENIED;

7

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 66) is DENIED;

8

3. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 93) is DENIED as MOOT;

9

4. Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 86) is DENIED as MOOT;

10
11
12

5. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 76, is VACATED without
prejudice to re-filing and service together with a Rand notice.
DATED: November 6, 2018

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5