Hoa v. Cate et al

Filing 99

SECOND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE, Motions terminated: 90 , 98 . Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 8/23/2013. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11
12

PAUL HOA,

Case No. 12-cv-02078 EMC (NC)
Plaintiff,
SECOND ORDER RE:
DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v.

13
14

MATHEW CATE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 90, 98

Defendants.

15
16

On June 18, 2013, this Court issued an order, Dkt. No. 75, setting forth specific

17 discovery that may be conducted by plaintiff Paul Hoa for the purpose of determining
18 whether there is a basis to sue an employee or supervisor at the prison, as authorized by
19 Judge Chen, Dkt. No. 64. The Court also set a further hearing to review the status of this
20 discovery matter. Dkt. No. 75 at 3. On August 20, 2013, the parties filed a joint status
21 report summarizing the discovery completed to date and raising a number of outstanding
22 issues. Dkt. No. 98. On August 21, 2013, the Court held a further hearing to address the
23 status of the discovery and the pending discovery disputes, including non-party Matthew
24 Cate’s motion to quash plaintiff’s subpoena for Cate’s deposition. Dkt. No. 90. This order
25 memorializes the Court’s rulings at the hearing.
26

1. DEPOSITIONS.

27

(A) Plaintiff’s Request for Additional Time to Depose Richard Riley and Fire Chief

28 Maresh. Plaintiff took the depositions of Richard Riley and Fire Chief Maresh, who were
Case No. 12-cv-02078 EMC (NC)
SECOND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

1 designated by the CDCR and San Quentin Prison as persons most knowledgeable (“PMK”)
2 on certain subjects identified in this Court’s June 18, 2013 order. Dkt. Nos. 75 at 2-3; 98 at
3 6-7. Plaintiff now requests additional time to depose Riley based on information that either
4 has become available after Riley’s deposition was taken, or was perceived to be outside of
5 the scope of the deposition as previously noticed. The request is granted. The continued
6 deposition, however, will be limited in scope to the following subjects identified by
7 plaintiff: (1) the identity and current whereabouts of all inmates employed at the loading
8 docks at the prison for the 6 months preceding the incident; (2) the Injury Illness Prevention
9 Program; and (3) the ramp that was used at the loading dock at the time plaintiff was
10 injured. In addition, although plaintiff has already had an opportunity to depose Riley as a
11 PMK regarding “the existence of prior complaints from any source concerning the prison’s
12 loading docks and the prison’s policy with respect to the same, for the 5 years preceding the
13 incident,” Dkt. Nos. 75 at 3; 98 at 6:14-15, in light of plaintiff’s assertion that the other
14 PMK on this topic, Fire Chief Maresh, was not fully prepared, plaintiff may ask Riley
15 follow-up questions on this topic. The deposition must take place on a mutually agreed date
16 by September 10, 2013 and must not exceed one hour.
17

In light of this ruling, plaintiff’s request for additional time to depose Fire Chief

18 Maresh, Dkt. No. 98 at 7-8, is denied as unnecessary at this time, and beyond the scope of
19 the limited discovery authorized by Judge Chen.
20

(B) Plaintiff’s Requests for Depositions of Alioto, McDonald, Giurbino, Clark, and

21 Martel. Plaintiff also seeks to depose Tom Alioto (acting Warehouse Manager at the
22 Waterfront Warehouse at the time of incident), and four individuals to whom Cate
23 delegated day-to-day management and operation of the prison––Terri McDonald, George
24 Giurbino, Ken Clark, and Michael Martel. Dkt. No. 98 at 11-12. Plaintiff, however, has
25 already deposed two supervisors at San Quentin, Raymond Mattuecci and Ronald Chan, as
26 well as the PMK of the CDCR and San Quentin Prison regarding the incident and the
27 applicable policies and procedures regarding inmate safety, among other topics. In light of
28 the discovery conducted to date, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to show that these
Case No. 12-cv-02078 EMC (NC)
SECOND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

2

1 additional depositions are within the scope of the “narrowly tailored and focused
2 discovery.” Dkt. No. 64. Accordingly, for the purpose of the limited discovery ordered by
3 Judge Chen to be completed by September 10, 2013, the Court denies plaintiff’s request to
4 take the depositions of the above individuals, and quashes any deposition subpoenas served
5 on them by plaintiff.
6

(C) Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoena to Cate. Non-party Cate moves to quash

7 plaintiff’s subpoena for his deposition on the grounds that it is outside the permissible scope
8 of discovery, especially given the discovery already conducted by plaintiff to date, and that
9 plaintiff has not met the burden required to justify the deposition of a former high-ranking
10 official. Dkt. No. 90. The Court agrees. Plaintiff essentially concedes that he has not met
11 his burden to justify the deposition of Cate, and instead argues that he intended to take the
12 deposition only “as a last resort.” Dkt. Nos. 94; 98 at 10. Accordingly, plaintiff’s
13 deposition subpoena to Cate is quashed.
14

2. WRITTEN DISCOVERY TO CDCR.

15

(A) Documents Regarding Paul Hoa. Plaintiff contends that the CDCR should

16 provide a privilege log of documents regarding Paul Hoa that it has withheld on the basis of
17 the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. Dkt. No. 98 at 13-14. Additionally, the
18 night before the August 21, 2013 hearing, plaintiff served a subpoena to the CDCR seeking
19 certain documents concerning Paul Hoa. Plaintiff and the CDCR have until August 28,
20 2013 to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve these issues and file a joint discovery letter
21 if unable to reach an agreement.
22

(B) Injury Illness Prevention Program. The Court previously ordered the CDCR to

23 produce “all written rules, policies, and procedures regarding inmate safety, that were in
24 effect at the time of Hoa’s injury at the location where the injury occurred, including but not
25 limited to the operations of the loading dock.” Dkt. No. 75 at 2. Hoa now contends that the
26 CDCR has failed to produce the complete version of an “Injury Illness Prevention Program”
27 responsive to this request. Dkt. No. 98 at 4. The CDCR responds that it has produced all
28 responsive documents. Accordingly, if plaintiff believes that there is a basis to move to
Case No. 12-cv-02078 EMC (NC)
SECOND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

3

tion
8,
meet
onfer
1 compel the product of this document, he has until August 28 2013 to m and co
e
d
e
o
by
joint discov
very letter if
2 with the CDCR and submit the dispute to the Court b filing a j
he
3 unable to resolve th issue.

4

3. PLAINTIF
FF’S REQU
UEST FOR AN EXTE
R
ENSION.

5

Pl
laintiff requ
uests that the Court con
ntinue the d
discovery de
eadline for 30 days. D No.
Dkt.

est
C
ed
er
ndersigned
6 98 at 15. The reque is denied. Judge Chen referre this matte to the un
ate
o
e
overy shoul take plac and set a deadline o
ld
ce,
of
7 Magistra Judge to determine what disco
ber
3
ete
overy. Any request to extend tha deadline s
y
o
at
should
8 Septemb 10, 2013 to comple the disco
t
hen
y.
er,
his
were
erly
9 therefore be made to Judge Ch directly Moreove even if th request w prope
istrate Judg in the firs instance, it would be denied du to
ge
st
e
ue
10 made to the undersigned Magi
0
f’s
o
e
dditional tim given th discovery that has ta
me
he
y
aken
11 plaintiff failure to justify the need for ad
1
he
cope set by Judge Che
y
en.
12 place to date and th limited sc
2

13
3

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

t
S
14 date of this order. See Civ. L.R. 72-2.
4

15
5

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

16
6

Date: August 23, 2013
t

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

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)
SECOND ORDER RE: DISCOV
D
R
VERY
DISPUT
TE

4