Ford v. California Health Care Facility et al.

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 4/11/2017 ORDERING plaintiff's 45 "Motion Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3)(B) or Plaintiff would like to come to an agreement to settle case" is DENIED. Defendant's 47 mot ion to compel is GRANTED. Within 10 days, defendant shall serve an amended Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on plaintiff with appropriate instructions. Within 20 days of the date of service of the the Request for Production of Documents , Set One, plaintiff shall respond. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to respond to the Request for Production, he may be sanctioned. Sanctions may include dismissal of this action. Defendant's request for sanctions 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

DARREN VINCENT FORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-2588 GEB DB P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

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

18
19

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendant Jahangiri violated plaintiff’s Eighth

20

Amendment rights when Jahangiri failed to take any protective measures after plaintiff threatened

21

to commit suicide. Before the court are plaintiff’s motion to quash or, in the alternative, to settle

22

the case, defendant’s motion to compel, and defendant’s request for sanctions. For the reasons set

23

forth below, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion, grant defendant’s motion to compel, and deny

24

defendant’s request for sanctions.
BACKGROUND

25

Plaintiff filed his complaint here on December 14, 2015. Upon screening, the court found

26
27

plaintiff stated a potentially cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment against defendant

28

////
1

1

Jahangiri for failing to take protective measures after plaintiff threatened to commit suicide.

2

(ECF No. 11.) Defendant Jahangiri is the only defendant remaining in this action.

3

On November 10, 2016, defendant filed an answer. (ECF No. 26.) On November 21,

4

2016, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting a deadline of March 10, 2017 for

5

discovery. (ECF No. 27.) On January 20, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s request for an

6

extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery. (ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff moved for a

7

second extension of time, which was also granted. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff’s responses to the

8

discovery were due on February 28, 2017. At defendant’s request, the court also continued the

9

discovery cut-off to April 14, 2017. (Id.)
On February 9, 2017, plaintiff filed the present motion entitled “Motion Pursuant to Rule

10
11

45(d)(3)(B) or Plaintiff would like to come to an agreement to settle case.” (ECF No. 45.) On

12

February 22, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s ‘Production

13

of Document & interrogatory Questions’ and ‘Copies of the Discovery forms.’” (ECF No. 46.)

14

On March 3, defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff to respond to his Request for Production

15

of Documents, Set One. Therein, defendant also requests sanctions. (ECF No. 47.) Neither party

16

has responded to the other’s motions.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

17
18

Plaintiff titles his motion as one pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3)(B) or for settlement. Federal

19

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(B) provides for motions to quash or modify a subpoena.

20

However, in the body of his motion, plaintiff only argues that he would be willing to settle this

21

case if he is transferred to an institution where he can “receive treatment for being a sex offender

22

and a pedophile.” (ECF No. 45.) Because defendant has not responded to plaintiff’s request to

23

settle this case, the court assumes defendant is not, at this time, prepared to engage in settlement

24

discussions. A party may also request a settlement conference pursuant to Local Rule 270. To

25

the extent plaintiff is making that request, the court does not find a settlement conference would

26

be beneficial at this time.

27

////

28

////
2

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL

1

Defendant moves to compel plaintiff to respond to defendant’s Request for Production of

2
3

Documents, Set One. (ECF No. 47.) Defendant states that plaintiff’s responses were due no later

4

than February 28, 2017. Plaintiff’s only response has been the objections filed February 22.

5

I.

Legal Standards

6

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may move

7

for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8

37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or

9

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have

10

‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule

11

of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting

12

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).

13

The party moving to compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery

14

requests are the subject of the motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why

15

the party believes the response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not justified, and (5) why

16

the information sought through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v.

17

Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv-1808-MJS (PC), 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v.

18

Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-5646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).

19

The reach of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs requests for

20

production, “extends to all relevant documents, tangible things, and entry upon designated land or

21

other property.” Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181 F.R.D. 470, 472-73 (D. Nev. 1998) (citing

22

8A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2206, at 381).

23

The purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can

24

obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” United States v. Chapman

25

University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). Rule 26(b)(1)

26

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers guidance on the scope of discovery permitted:

27
28

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of
3

1

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.

2
3
4
5

“Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of Seattle,

6

147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of

7

establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the

8

party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and

9

the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07cv200

10

JM (PCL), 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (internal citation omitted).

11

II.

12

Defendant provides a copy of the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to which

13

plaintiff has not responded. (See ECF No. 47-1 at 4-5.) There are a total of six requests. The

14

first three requests seek any documents supporting plaintiff’s contentions that defendant violated

15

his rights, that plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies, and that plaintiff filed a claim with

16

the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board. The second three requests seek any

17

documents regarding the harm and damages plaintiff alleges defendant caused him. All six

18

requests seek documents relevant to this action.

19

Analysis

In his objections filed here on February 22, plaintiff states only that defendant has exceeded

20

the number of questions permitted under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

21

Plaintiff argues that defendant has asked 47 “questions and forms.” For several reasons,

22

plaintiff’s objections are baseless. First, defendant is not seeking to compel plaintiff to respond to

23

the interrogatories. According to defendant, plaintiff has already done so. Second, Rule 33 limits

24

only the number of interrogatories that may be served. Again, because defendant seeks to compel

25

plaintiff to respond to the Request for Production of Documents, not to the interrogatories, Rule

26

33 is not applicable. Even if it was, the court notes that defendant has not served an excessive

27

number of discovery requests upon plaintiff. Defendant provided copies of both the

28

Interrogatories and the Request for Documents. (See ECF No. 47-1 at 5-11.) Defendant served
4

1

fifteen interrogatories and six requests for documents. These numbers are well within the rules

2

and plaintiff fails to show defendant’s discovery requests are otherwise burdensome or

3

inappropriate. Accordingly, the court finds good cause to compel plaintiff to respond to

4

defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.
While plaintiff must respond to defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, the court

5
6

notes that defendant made one error in the request which could have caused some confusion. The

7

request requires plaintiff to “respond to each of the following interrogatories separately and fully

8

in writing and under oath within 30 days of service of this set of document requests.” (Req. for

9

Doc., Set One, at 1 (ECF No. 47-1 at 4).) While this is simply an error, it does not inform

10

plaintiff what he must do to comply with the Request for Production of Documents. Defendant

11

will be required to re-serve the request on plaintiff with appropriate instructions.

12

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

13

Defendant argues that sanctions are appropriate because plaintiff has had more than

14

fourteen weeks to respond to the discovery request and has already been compelled to respond.

15

Defendant cites the court’s February 9, 2017 order as a basis for his assertion that plaintiff was

16

previously “compelled” to respond to discovery. Defendant misconstrues the February 9 order.

17

Therein, the court gave plaintiff an extension of time to respond to defendant’s discovery and

18

denied defendant’s motion to compel without prejudice. (ECF No. 44.) The February 9 order

19

required plaintiff to respond to defendant’s interrogatories and request for documents by February

20

28. On February 22, plaintiff filed his objections to the discovery sought. Accordingly,

21

plaintiff’s response was timely filed and defendant provides no basis, at this point, for sanctions.

22

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) (sanctions permissible against party who fails to obey an order to

23

provide discovery). Defendant’s motion for sanctions will be denied without prejudice.

24
25

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as
follows:
1. Plaintiff’s “Motion Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3)(B) or Plaintiff would like to come to an

26

agreement to settle case” (ECF No. 45) is denied.

27
28

////
5

1

2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 47) is granted. Within ten days of the date

2

of this order, defendant shall serve an amended Request for Production of Documents,

3

Set One, on plaintiff with appropriate instructions.

4

3. Within twenty days of the date of service of the Request for Production of Documents,

5

Set One, plaintiff shall respond. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to respond to the

6

Request for Production, he may be sanctioned. Sanctions may include dismissal of

7

this action.

8
9

4. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied without prejudice.
Dated: April 11, 2017

10
11
12
13
14

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/ford2588.mtc

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6