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
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
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: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
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: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
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