Martin v. Her
Filing
32
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/29/2019 DENYING plaintiff's 29 motion for an extension of time and request for return of CD, and DENYING defendant's 30 motion to compel. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SMILEY MARTIN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2: 18-cv-1658 KJN P
v.
ORDER
J. HER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
17
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to
19
conduct discovery and request for return of a CD. (ECF No. 29.) Also pending is defendant’s
20
motion to compel. (ECF No. 30.) For the reasons stated herein, these motions are denied.
21
Plaintiff’s Claims
This action proceeds on the original complaint filed June 7, 2018, against defendant Her, a
22
23
deputy sheriff employed at the Sacramento County Jail. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that
24
defendant Her let a “bunch of other inmates who are rival gang members fight against us.” (Id. at
25
3.) Plaintiff alleges that the other inmates are Bloods, so they belonged on the east side of the
26
jail. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Her threatened to retaliate against him for filing a
27
grievance. (Id. at 4.)
28
////
1
1
2
3
4
5
Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to defendant’s motion to compel. However, for the
reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion to compel is denied.
Defendant alleges that plaintiff failed to make a proper response to special interrogatory
No. 10 which asked,
7
“Is your response to each request for admission served with these
interrogatories an unqualified admission? If no, for each response
that is not an unqualified admission:
8
(a) State the number of your request;
9
(b) State all facts upon which you base your response;
6
10
11
12
13
14
(c) State the name, address and telephone number of all persons who
have knowledge of those facts.
(ECF No. 30-2 at 28.)
Plaintiff responded to interrogatory no. 10, “my admissions are qualified.” (Id.) Plaintiff
did not otherwise explain this response.
15
In the motion to compel, defendant states that plaintiff denied all requests for admissions.
16
(ECF No. 30 at 2.) Defendant argues that because plaintiff denied all requests for admissions, his
17
response to interrogatory no. 10 that his admissions are qualified is improper, evasive and fails to
18
respond to the interrogatory. (Id.)
19
Defendant served plaintiff with five requests for admissions. Request for admission one
20
states, “Admit that defendant is not liable to you under your first claim for relief for threat to
21
safety under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as alleged in your complaint.” (ECF No.
22
30-2 at 33.) Request for admission two states, “Admit that defendant is not liable to you under
23
your second claim for relief for retaliation under the Fourteenth Amendment, as alleged in your
24
complaint.” (Id.) Request for admission three states, “Admit that to your knowledge, the men
25
that attacked you on January 28, 2018 were not rival gang members.” (Id.) Request for
26
admission four states, “Admit that you are not a gang member.” (Id. at 34.) Request for
27
admission five states, “Admit that your own acts or omissions caused your injuries resulting from
28
the incident.” (Id.)
2
1
Plaintiff denied all requests for admissions. (Id. at 33-34.)
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides that “[a] party may serve on any other party a
3
written request to admit...the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to...
4
facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). The
5
scope of Rule 26(b)(1) provides that matters “that [are] relevant to any party's claim or defense
6
and proportional to the needs of the case” are discoverable. If a responding party does not admit
7
a matter, the party “must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot
8
truthfully admit or deny it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). “[W]hen good faith requires that a party
9
qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and
10
qualify or deny the rest.” Id.
11
“Requests for admission are “first, to facilitate proof with respect to issues that cannot be
12
eliminated from the case, and second to narrow the issues by eliminating those that can be. The
13
rule is not to be used in an effort to harass the other side.” Jones v. Skolnik, 2014 WL 2625000 at
14
* 1 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007)).
15
Requests for admissions are designed to limit the factual issues in the case. Trachhia v. Tilton,
16
2008 WL 5382253 at * 2 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
17
Requests for admissions should not be used to establish “facts which are obviously in
18
dispute.” Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. American Home Assur. Co., 177 F.R.D. 454, 458 (D. Minn.
19
1997). “Although the rule permits a party to ask another party to admit the truth of ‘the
20
application of law to facts,’ requests for admission should not be used to ‘demand that the other
21
party admit the truth of a legal conclusion,’” Tracchia, 2008 WL 5382253 *2 (quoting Disability
22
Rights Council v. Wash. Metro. Area, 234 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
23
Defendant’s requests for admissions violate the strictures that such requests not seek to
24
establish facts in obvious dispute and not demand the opposite party to admit the truth of a legal
25
conclusion. For example, whether plaintiff caused his own injuries is in obvious dispute.
26
Defendant’s requests for admissions are not designed to limit the factual issues in this case.
27
28
Because defendant’s requests for admissions are improper, plaintiff is not required to
provide a further response to interrogatory no. 10. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to compel is
3
1
denied.1
2
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
3
4
On February 27, 2019, the court issued a scheduling order setting the discovery deadline
for June 14, 2019, and the dispositive motion deadline for September 6, 2019. (ECF No. 28.)
On June 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time “to review the
5
6
video footage in my discovery.” (ECF No. 29 at 1.) Plaintiff also states that he would like an
7
injunction “for CDCR to release the CD that the court ordered for my discovery. They took it and
8
I’m still waiting for them to find it.” (Id.)
9
On June 26, 2019, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for extension of
10
time. (ECF No. 31.) Defendant argues that plaintiff does not require an extension of time to
11
review the video footage provided by defendant in the discovery responses. Defendant also states
12
that he has no control over the CDCR or its policies regarding withholding the CD from plaintiff.
13
The undersigned agrees that plaintiff does not require an extension of time to review the
14
video footage provided to him by defendant. The undersigned also agrees that defendant has no
15
control over when and whether CDCR officials will permit plaintiff to review the video footage.
16
For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time is denied.
17
If plaintiff has still not viewed the video footage by the time he receives this order, he may
18
file a motion requesting court assistance in reviewing the video footage. In this motion, plaintiff
19
shall describe his attempts to review the video footage, including to whom his requests were
20
made and when.
21
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
22
1. Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty days extension of time and request for return of CD (ECF
23
No. 29) is denied;
24
////
25
////
26
////
27
28
“Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not a game of ‘gotcha.’” Grubbs v.
Winn Dixie Properties, LLC, 2015 WL 3892555 at *1 (E.D. La. 2015).
4
1
1
2
2. Defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 30) is denied.
Dated: July 29, 2019
3
4
5
Mart1658.den
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?