Hoa v. Cate et al

Filing 75

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 66 71 . Further Discovery Hearing set for 8/21/2013 01:00 PM. Parties shall file a joint discovery status report by 8/14/2013. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 6/18/13. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11

PAUL HOA,

Case No. 12-cv-02078 EMC (NC)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

v.

13
14

MATHEW CATE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 66, 71

Defendants.

15
On May 10, 2013, Judge Chen issued an order permitting plaintiff Paul Hoa to

16

17 conduct “narrowly tailored and focused discovery” to “explore whether there is a plausible
18 basis for liability on the part of an employee or supervisor at the prison,” to be completed
19 by September 10, 2013. Dkt. No. 64. Upon referral from Judge Chen, the undersigned
20 Magistrate Judge held a hearing on June 5, 2013 to address the timing and scope of
21 discovery, including the issues raised in Cate’s “Request for Clarification of Grant of
22 Limited Discovery,” Dkt. No. 66, and the joint discovery statement, Dkt. No. 71. This
23 order memorializes the Court’s rulings at the hearing.
1. CATE’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION. For purposes of the “narrowly

24

25 tailored and focused discovery” ordered by Judge Chen, Cate will be treated as a party to
26 this case.
27 //
28
Case No. 12-cv-02078 EMC (NC)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

1

2. DISCOVERY REQUESTS.

2

(A) Written Discovery Requests to Cate. In the joint discovery statement and at the

3 hearing, Cate stated that he has no documents or information responsive to Hoa’s requests
4 for production and special interrogatories. Dkt. No. 71 at 16. Hoa did not dispute this
5 statement, but indicated that he will further evaluate Cate’s discovery responses and limit
6 any follow-up inquiries to the requests for production and special interrogatories listed on
7 pages 14 and 15 of the joint discovery statement. Id. at 14-15. Based on these
8 representations, the Court does not order Cate to provide any further responses to Hoa’s
9 discovery requests at this time. If Hoa believes that a motion to compel is necessary with
10 respect to any specific requests, he must meet and confer with Cate as soon as practicable.
11 If, after meeting and conferring, the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, they may
12 submit a joint discovery letter brief in accordance with the Court’s standing order. See
13 Mag. Judge N. Cousins, Civil Standing Order, updated Aug. 24, 2012. Any such dispute
14 must be submitted for this Court’s resolution by July 10, 2013.
15

(B) Written Discovery Requests to the CDCR. The Court orders non-party California

16 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to produce all written rules,
17 policies, and procedures regarding inmate safety, that were in effect at the time of Hoa’s
18 injury at the location where the injury occurred, including but not limited to the operations
19 of the loading dock. This production must occur by July 10, 2013.
20

(C) Depositions. Hoa may take the following depositions:

21

i. Depositions of non-parties Raymond Mattuecci and Ronald Chan. These

22 depositions will be limited to three hours each.
23

ii. Person most knowledgeable deposition of CDCR on the subjects of (1) the

24 incident that took place at San Quentin Prison resulting in Hoa’s injury; (2) the rules,
25 policies, and procedures regarding inmate safety, that were in effect at the time of Hoa’s
26 injury at the location where the injury occurred, including but not limited to the operations
27 of the loading dock; and (3) the investigation of workplace injuries at the location where
28 Hoa’s injury took place.
Case No. 12-cv-02078 EMC (NC)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

2

iii. Person most knowledgeable deposition of San Quentin Prison on the subjects of

1

2 (1) the incident that took place at the prison resulting in Hoa’s injury; (2) the existence of
3 prior complaints from any source concerning the prison’s loading docks and the prison’s
4 policy with respect to the same, for the 5 years preceding the incident; (3) the rules,
5 policies, and procedures regarding inmate safety, that were in effect at the time of Hoa’s
6 injury at the location where the injury occurred, including but not limited to the operations
7 of the loading dock; and (4) the identity and current whereabouts of all inmates employed at
8 the loading docks at the prison for the 6 months preceding the incident.
The depositions of CDCR and San Quentin Prison will each be limited to three hours,

9

10 regardless of the number of deponents.
(D) Additional third party discovery. Hoa indicated that he intends to serve

11

12 additional document subpoenas on third parties. At the hearing, Cate stated that he does not
13 take a position with respect to such discovery. At this time, the contemplated third party
14 discovery does not present an issue for this Court’s resolution. The Court notes, however,
15 that any such discovery must be propounded in a diligent and timely manner, and that any
16 disputes that arise regarding such discovery must be submitted to this Court as soon as
17 practicable to ensure compliance with the September 10, 2013 discovery deadline.
3. PROTECTIVE ORDER. The Court ordered the parties to file a proposed

18

19 protective order by June 14, 2013. The parties have not done so. By June 26, 2013, the
20 parties must either file a proposed protective order or a statement that a protective order is
21 not necessary for the purpose of completing the discovery ordered by Judge Chen.
4. FURTHER DISCOVERY HEARING. A further hearing on this discovery matter

22

23 is scheduled for August 21, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. By August 14, 2013, the parties must submit
24 a joint report informing the Court of the status of the discovery that has been completed
25 since June 5, 2013, what discovery remains to be conducted, and any related disputes.
26 //
27
28
Case No. 12-cv-02078 EMC (NC)
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

3

1

An party ma object to this nondispositive pr
ny
ay
o
retrial order within 14 days of the filing
r
e

t
S
2 date of this order. See Civ. L.R. 72-2.

3

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

4

Date: June 18 2013
8,

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
0
11
1
12
2
13
3
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 12-cv-0207 EMC (NC
78
C)
ORDER RE: DISCO
R
OVERY DIS
SPUTE

4