Frederick v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 114

ORDER DENYING 89 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL; SETTING SCHEDULE FOR CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 1, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/2/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT )
)
OF CORRECTIONS AND
)
REHABILITATION,
)
)
Defendant.
____________________________ )
JERRY M. FREDERICK,

No. C 08-2222 MMC (PR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL; SETTING
SCHEDULE FOR CROSS-MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Docket No. 89)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On April 29, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner then incarcerated at the Correctional
Training Facility at Soledad (“CTF”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil
rights action.1 Thereafter, the Court found the complaint stated cognizable claims for
injunctive relief and damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and ordered the complaint served on the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). The Court subsequently denied
CDCR’s motion for summary judgment and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Nandor
Vadas for settlement proceedings, which proceedings took place on March 22, 2011. The
parties did not reach a settlement agreement.

28
1

Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at the Oak Glen Conservation Camp, in Yucaipa,
California.

1

On March 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 25,

2

2011, defendant filed a notice of intent to file a cross-motion for summary judgment. By

3

order filed April 1, 2011, the Court set a briefing schedule for defendant’s cross-motion for

4

summary judgment. Thereafter, the Court subsequently stayed briefing on the summary

5

judgment motions, pending ruling on plaintiff’s motion to compel. Specifically, by order

6

filed May 18, 2011 the Court denied in part and reserved ruling in part on a motion whereby

7

plaintiff sought to compel production of the complete personnel records of two CTF

8

employees, P. Taporco (“Taporco”) and R. Pope (“Pope”). The Court denied the motion to

9

the extent it sought any of Taporco’s personnel records. With respect to Pope, the Court
denied the motion as to all documents other than those relating to Pope’s previous firecamp

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

work,2 and directed defendant to file under seal for in camera review all documents related to

12

Pope’s previous firecamp work. In the event defendant had no such documents, defendant

13

was to file a declaration so stating.

14

On July 11, 2011, defendant filed the Declaration of Michelle Wilson (“Wilson”),

15

CDCR’s Staff Services Manager employed at CTF; Wilson states therein that she has

16

reviewed Pope’s personnel file, and that such review shows Pope has never worked in a

17

firecamp. Accordingly, it appears there are no documents responsive to that portion of

18

plaintiff’s discovery request, and the deferred portion of plaintiff’s motion to compel is

19

hereby DENIED.

20

In light of the above, the Court SETS the following briefing schedule:

21

1. No later than October 7, 2011, defendant shall file an opposition to plaintiff’s

22

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed no later than November 7,

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

At issue in this case are plaintiff’s allegations that, because of a medical disability, he
was not allowed to participate in CDCR’s firecamp program. Plaintiff alleges that despite his
having received medical clearance for firecamp placement as a special-skills worker,
Taporco and Pope denied his transfer to a firecamp program. Plaintiff represented to the
Court that Pope had claimed to work in the firecamp program in the past. The Court found
that any previous firecamp work by which Pope was exposed to the scope of the ADA’s
requirements could lead to discovery of evidence that Pope knowingly failed to act on a
likely violation of plaintiff’s rights. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39
(9th Cir. 2001) (holding damages available under Title II of ADA where defendant
knowingly fails to act where harm to a “federally protected right is substantially likely”).
2

1
2

2011.
2. No later than October 7, 2011, defendant shall file a cross-motion for summary

3

judgment. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed no later than November 7, 2011. Defendant

4

shall file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition no later than November 25, 2011.

5

This order terminates Docket No. 89.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

DATED: August 1, 2011
_____________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3