Hoa v. Cate et al
Filing
47
ORDER RESETTING FURTHER CMC TO 5/30/13 at 10:30 a.m.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/20/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Gene H. Shioda, Bar No. 186780
James A. Kim, Bar No. 220763
Jason Y. Lie, Bar No. 233614
LAW OFFICE OF GENE H. SHIODA
5757 West Century Blvd., Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90045
lawofficeofghs@yahoo.com
Telephone: 310/348-7222 / Fax: 310/348-7220
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF PAUL HOA
John F. Geary (SBN 13777)
Raymond J. Fullerton (SBN 219264)
Robert W. Henkels (SBN 255410)
GEARY, SHEA, O’DONNELL, GRATTAN, AND MITCHELL
37 Old Courthouse Square, Fourth Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Telephone: (707) 545-1660 / Fax: (707)545-1876
Attorneys for David F. Lopez, T. Gregory Stagnitto, Bridge Transport
Stag Leasing, Inc.
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JAY M. GOLDMAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MANEESH SHARMA (SBN: 280084)
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 703-5553 / Fax: (415) 703-1234
Attorneys for Dismissed Party Matthew Cate
19
20
21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
22
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
23
24
PAUL HOA, an individual.
25
Plaintiff,
26
Case No. 3:12-cv-02078-EMC
vs.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT & PROPOSED
ORDER ; ORDER RESETTING CMC
27
28
MATHEW CATE, in his official
capacity as the Secretary for
-1-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitations; CALIFORNIA,
a state; CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, a state agency;
SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, a
state facility; DAVID F. LOPEZ , an
individual; T. GREGORY
STAGNITTO, an individual;
MICHAEL MARTEL, an individual;
BRIDGE TRANSPORT, an entity of
unknown form; STAG LEASING,
INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 to 20, Inclusive.
Date: March 21, 2013
Time: 1:30 PM
Dept: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
Judge: Honorable Edward Chen
Complaint filed: April 25, 2012
10
Defendants.
11
12
13
The parties to the above-entitled action, and nonparty Matthew Cate, jointly
14
submit this JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED
15
ORDER pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of
16
California dated March 15, 2013 and Civil Local Rule 16-9.
17
18
1. Jurisdiction & Service
Plaintiff:
19
A. All parties have been served.
20
B. Plaintiff intends to add DOE Parties and will file a Motion for Leave to
21
Add Doe Parties on March 25, 2013 as Defendant Matthew Cate has
22
refused to stipulate that Plaintiff can add Does.
23
24
25
C. No dispute as to Personal Jurisdiction as to Non-State Defendants.
D. The State defendants have been dismissed.
26
E. Matthew Cate does not dispute personal jurisdiction.
27
F. Dispute exists as to Subject Matter Jurisdiction as the action is premised
28
on Federal Question – 42 U.S.C. 1983 action as to Matthew Cate and
-2-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
1
Supplemental Jurisdiction as it relates to Defendants T. Gregory
2
Stagnitto, Bridge Transport, LLC, Stag Leasing, Inc. and David F.
3
Lopez.
4
G. Plaintiff intends to file its Amended Complaint on March 25, 2013.
5
Non-State defendants:
6
The non-state defendants have answered plaintiff’s complaint.
7
Dismissed party Cate: Plaintiff’s claims against Matthew Cate were dismissed on
8
November 15, 2013 and Mr. Cate is no longer party to this matter. Counsel for
9
Mr. Cate will appear at the case management conference in case the Court has any
10
11
questions or concerns. Mr. Cate, by and through his counsel, disputes Plaintiff’s
12
statement that “Cate has refused to stipulate that Plaintiff can add DOEs.”
13
Plaintiff has not presented Mr. Cate with any proposed stipulation regarding the
14
use of Doe defendants for Mr. Cate’s review.
15
2. Facts
16
At this time there is no operative complaint on file with the Court. The
17
Operative Amended Complaint is due with the Court on March 25, 2013.
18
3. Discovery issue and legal Issues
19
Pursuant to the Court Order, Plaintiff propounded the following discovery:
20
1. Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Cate, Set One;
21
2. Request for Production of Documents to CDCR, Set One, and
alternatively, by subpoena duces tecum to CDCR;
22
23
3. Subpoena Duces Tecum to San Quentin Prison;
24
4. California Freedom of Information Act to CAL-OSHA
25
5. Special Interrogatories, Set One to Defendant Cate
26
6. Special Interrogatories Set One to CDCR
27
28
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff intended to take the deposition of Matthew Cate but reserved until
-3-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
1
documents were received in response to the written discovery. However, due to
2
the non-responsive answers with meritless objections, Plaintiff has set forth
3
several meet and confer letters and is forced to file Motions to Compel as outlined
4
below. As an example, Defendant Cate would respond to Special Interrogatories
5
and requested information on the policy regarding inmate safety and the response
6
is from Defendant Cate that “his subordinates” worked on it. Defendant Cate
7
failed to identify the subordinates (contrary to the Court’s explanation) forcing
8
Plaintiff to serve meet and confer letters.
9
Dismissed party Cate:
10
11
Plaintiff was granted leave to “take reasonable, limited, and narrowly
12
tailored discovery to determine whether Cate and other state employee Defendants
13
named as Does had knowledge of and acquiesced in unconstitutional conduct by
14
their subordinates.” (Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No.42.)
15
Plaintiff has consistently ignored or misinterpreted the scope, subject matter, and
16
intent of the Court’s order allowing Plaintiff to take limited discovery and is
17
abusing the discovery process. To date Plaintiff has attempted to serve two-
18
hundred and eighty-eight (288) Requests for Production and forty-two (42)
19
Special Interrogatories on non-parties Cate and California Department of
20
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In addition, Plaintiff’s specific discovery
21
requests were not “narrowly tailored and focused” and, with a few exceptions,
22
were not limited to obtaining information within the scope specified by the Court
23
or even allowable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Cate timely
24
provided responses and objections to Plaintiff’s Request for the Production of
25
Documents and Special Interrogatories. And CDCR timely provided responses
26
and objections to Plaintiff’s Request for the Production of Documents, provided
27
responsive documents, and timely informed Plaintiff of its objection to Plaintiff’s
28
improper attempted service of interrogatories on a non-party. Plaintiff’s numerous
-4-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
1
and repetitive meet and confer letters, including a 183-page letter consisting of
2
inaccurate and boilerplate arguments, are not directed to specific objections,
3
misstate the facts, and miscite the law. For example, counsel for Mr. Cate has
4
explained that Mr. Cate is no longer employed by CDCR, and does not have any
5
responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control. Nevertheless,
6
Plaintiff repeatedly insists that Mr. Cate should produce documents responsive to
7
his requests, and threatens to file a motion to compel if he does not do so.
8
Nonstate Defendants:
9
The non-state defendants request that the Court open discovery pursuant to
10
11
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 26. In its November 15, 2012 Order, the
12
Court granted only plaintiff leave to conduct limited discovery and postponed the
13
next case management conference until March 21, 2013. Thus, the parties have
14
not yet had an Initial Case Management Conference pursuant to Rule 26(f). Since
15
the November 15 Order, plaintiff has propounded discovery, and (dismissed)
16
defendant Mathew Cate has objected. Now it is clear that both parties seek to
17
have this dispute heard by this Court through motion practice. Further delaying
18
any resolution so that this case may proceed, there is no operative complaint on
19
file and, as evidenced by the current posturing, it may be some time before the
20
pleadings are settled as between plaintiff and Mathew Cate, or any other party that
21
may be brought into this action.
22
The non-state defendants have answered plaintiff’s complaint and thus his
23
allegations are in issue. Plaintiff’s counsel has represented to defendants that he
24
has no objection to beginning discovery. But due to the current status of this case,
25
the parties have not been able to meet to discuss discovery pursuant to Rule 26(f).
26
In any event, it is not clear given the court’s prior Order whether the instant
27
hearing is a Rule 26(f) Conference. Defendants have a right to conduct discovery
28
into any “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defence” and,
-5-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
1
accordingly, respectfully request that the Court authorize discovery pursuant to
2
Rule 26(d)(1), irrespective of the current or future status of plaintiff’s and
3
defendant Mathew Cate’s disagreements.
4
4. Discovery Motions
5
Plaintiff:
6
Plaintiff intends to file a Motion to compel as it relates to the discovery
7
referenced above provided by Defendant Mathew Cate and Non-party CDCR.
8
Plaintiff submits that Defendant Cate and CDCR responses to written
9
discovery and subpoenaed documents are incomplete, inconsistent, and
10
11
unreasonable. Responses assert boilerplate objections on the grounds of
12
vagueness and relevance without any reference to any document. Rule 34(b)(2(C).
13
The responses assert claims of privilege without any reference, description, or
14
character of any document deemed to be protected. Rule 45(d)(2). Statements of
15
compliance are incomplete and do not comply with Rule 24(b)(2)(B). Plaintiff
16
has offered a stipulated protective order and reducing the discovery requests at
17
issue, in compromise. Written meet and confers and offers in compromise were
18
served. Defendant Cate requested an extension of time to respond. After the time
19
of extension, Defendant Cate offers no compromise and a motion to compel is
20
deemed by Plaintiff warranted.
21
Plaintiff intends to file the Motions to Compel on or before March 25, 2013.
22
Defendant Non State:
23
Dismissed party Cate:
24
Non-party Cate disputes Plaintiff’s representation that a motion to compel is
25
warranted. Plaintiff has sent lengthy and inaccurate letters to counsel for Mr. Cate,
26
but has failed to meet-and-confer in a manner aimed at attempting to resolve
27
alleged discovery disputes.
28
5. Amendment of Pleadings
-6-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
1
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 27, 2012. The Court
2
granted the 12b6 motion by Defendant Cate, but the Court did rule the Plaintiff
3
has the right file an amended complaint. The third Amended Complaint is due on
4
March 25, 2013. Also the Court informed the parties that it should be stipulated
5
that Plaintiff can add DOE Defendants. Defendant Cate refused as such, Plaintiff
6
will also be filing a motion to add DOE Defendants on March 25, 2013.
7
Dismissed party Cate: Cate disputes Plaintiff’s characterization of Court’s
8
statements at oral argument on November 9, 2013 and the Court’s November 15,
9
2013 order. The Court did not order Mr. Cate to enter into a stipulation with
10
11
Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff has not provided Mr. Cate with a copy of any
12
proposed stipulation regarding “DOE Defendants” for his review.
13
6. Evidence Preservation
14
Prior to the litigation Plaintiff demanded that the parties preserve all
15
evidence in the matter by way of letter. The non-State defendants have not and
16
will not destroy evidence.
17
7. Disclosures
18
Plaintiff served Rule 26 disclosures on October 29, 2012. The non-state
19
defendants served Rule 26 Disclosures on November 2, 2012. Defendant Cate has
20
not served any Rule 26 Disclosures.
21
Dismissed party Cate: The parties previously stipulated to extend the deadline for
22
Rule 26 disclosure until after the Court’s ruling on Cate Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
23
dismiss. On November 15, 2013 the Court dismissed Cate from the matter. As a
24
nonparty, Cate has no obligation to served Rule 26 disclosures.
25
8. Discovery
26
Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Defendant Cate and subpoenaed
27
documents from CDCR, San Quentin and CAL-OSHA, to ascertain facts and the
28
persons responsible to properly name as defendants. Responses were served and
-7-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
1
further responses were the subject of unsuccessful efforts to compromise a
2
discovery dispute this discussion contained above in section 3 and 4.
3
4
Dismissed party Cate: Mr. Cate is not a defendant in this matter. Plaintiff’s
representations about the nature of the copious amount of discovery he has served
5
on Mr. Cate and CDCR is inaccurate. The scope of discovery served by Plaintiff
6
went far beyond that described by Plaintiff.
7
9. Class Actions
8
This is not a class action.
9
10. Related Cases
10
11
12
13
There is no related civil case.
11. Relief
Damages sought will be in excess of $40,000,000.00. Plaintiff is a
14
quadriplegic as a result of this incident. At this time, he is unable to breathe on his
15
own and is on a ventilator. Currently, medical care exceeds $3,000,000.00 with
16
significant care to do.
17
Plaintiff is deemed Totally Disabled. Plaintiff has a spinal cord injury with
18
subsequent tetraplegia, vent dependency, neurogenic bowel, neurogenic bladder
19
and pain. He is nursing care facility with 24 hour watch.
20
Plaintiff has the lost use of his hands, arms, legs, and limited neck
21
movement. He is currently living in a care center that is working with him to get
22
range of motion on his neck so that he can be ambulatory in a wheel-chair.
23
Plaintiff is on significant pain medication.
24
Defendants have no discovery/third party confirmation as to plaintiff’s
25
injuries, so the above is plaintiff’s contention. Defendants contend damages to be
26
calculated, if any, as only those which are reasonable and necessary with
27
application of Hanif/Howell any other applicable law, dependent upon the scope
28
of plaintiff’s claimed damages.
-8-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
1
Dismissed party Cate: Mr. Cate is not a party to this action.
2
12. Settlement and ADR
3
4
Plaintiff will agree to any ADR or settlement discussions. Non-party Cate
has been dismissed from this lawsuit, and as a result will not be involved in
5
settlement discussions or ADR.
6
13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes
7
Whether all parties will consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all
8
further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment.
9
YES X NO by Plaintiff.
10
11
12
14. Other References
Plaintiff will not agree to binding arbitration. Defendants Stag Leasing,
13
Inc., Bridge Transport, T. Gregory Stagnitto, and David F. Lopez will not agree to
14
binding arbitration.
15
15. Narrowing of Issues
16
Inapplicable at this time.
17
16. Expedited Trial Procedure
18
Inapplicable at this time.
19
20
17. Scheduling
Inapplicable at this time as Plaintiff’s Third amended complaint is due on or
21
before March 25, 2013.
22
18. Trial
23
24
25
Jury trial – 7 to 10 day trial.
19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons
To Plaintiff’s knowledge each party has filed the “Certification of Interested
26
Entities or Persons” required by Civil Local Rule 3-16. Defendants Stag Leasing,
27
Inc., Bridge Transport, T. Gregory Stagnitto, and David F. Lopez will have done
28
so by the Case Management Conference date.
-9-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
1
2
3
4
20. Other
The Case Management Conference should be reset as Plaintiff will be filing
a third amended complaint, motion to add DOES, discovery motions and
Defendants will have to respond to the Third Amended Complaint.
5
Dismissed Party Cate: Mr. Cate is not a party to this matter, and therefore
6
takes no position on the setting of case management conferences or other events
7
or deadlines in this case.
8
9
10
Dated: March 14, 2013
By:
11
12
LAW OFFICE OF GENE H. SHIODA
/S/
Gene H. Shioda
James A. Kim
Jason Y. Lie
Attorneys for Plaintiff PUAL HOA
13
14
15
Dated: March 14, 2013
16
17
18
19
GEARY, SHEA, O’DONNEL,
GRATTAN, AND MITCHELL
By:___________//S//_______________
John F. Geary
Robert W. Henkels
Attorneys for
David F. Lopez, T. Gregory Stagnitto,
Bridge Transport, Stag Leasing, Inc.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Dated: March 14, 2013
By:
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JAY M. GOLDMAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MANEESH SHARMA
Deputy Attorney General
/s/
Maneesh Sharma
Attorneys for
Dismissed Party Matthew Cate
27
28
- 10
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
1
2
The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED
3
4
5
ORDER is approved as the Case Management Order for this case and all parties
shall comply with its provisions.
6
5/30/13
The Court has re-set the Case Management for
at 10:30 a.m.
7
An updated Joint CMC statement shall be filed by 5/23/13.
11
16
UNITED M. Chen DISTRICT/
STATES
ard
dge Edw EDWARD CHEN
Ju JUDGE
FO
ER
H
15
RT
14
3/20/13
NO
13
Dated:
A
12
DERED
O OR
IT IS S
R NIA
10
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
LI
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S
9
UNIT
ED
this Department.
RT
U
O
8
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
in
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?