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)

Download PDF
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?