Williams v. Williams

Filing 71

ORDER (1)GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION REGARDING DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING MATTERS;(2)SETTING DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING SCHEDULES. Motions terminated: 68 MOTION for issuance of missing documents; extension of time or stay order, and amended order for production of discovery motion is TERMINATED. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Stipulated Protective Order, # 2 Certificate of Service includes 65 )(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

ISAIAH N. WILLIAMS,

No. C 07-4464 CW (PR)

4
5
v.

6
7

ORDER (1)GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
REGARDING DISCOVERY AND BRIEFING
MATTERS;(2)SETTING DISCOVERY AND
BRIEFING SCHEDULES

Plaintiff,

D. WILLIAMS,

8

Defendant.
/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
BACKGROUND
11
Plaintiff Isaiah N. Williams, a state prisoner, has filed a
12
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
13
constitutional rights violations while incarcerated at Pelican Bay
14
State Prison (PBSP).
15
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s recently-filed
16
motion concerning the completion of discovery and the briefing of
17
Defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment.
18
A.

Discovery Proceedings

19
In the instant action, Plaintiff raises claims of deliberate
20
indifference to safety, retaliation, excessive force and the
21
violation of due process, based on the actions of Defendant Debra
22
Williams when she was employed as a correctional officer at PBSP in
23
August 2006.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendant

24
deliberately opened Plaintiff’s cell door in order to cause a fight
25
between Plaintiff and another inmate, which resulted in Defendant’s
26
shooting Plaintiff.

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Defendant

27
prevented him from being present at a disciplinary hearing on
28
assault charges stemming from the fight.

1

On June 30, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for summary

2

judgment, which she later supplemented pursuant to court order.

3

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, as well

4

as a motion either to stay summary judgment or to extend the

5

deadline for him to oppose Defendant’s motion pending resolution of

6

the motion to compel.

7

On December 9, 2010, the Court granted in part and in denied
in part Plaintiff’s discovery motion, referred the discovery matter

9

to Magistrate Judge Beeler, and ordered Defendant to submit to

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

Magistrate Judge Beeler for in camera review answers to certain

11

interrogatories and document requests and to provide Plaintiff with

12

answers to other interrogatories and document requests.

13

no. 54.)

14

(Docket

Subsequently, on March 7, 2011, the Court denied without

15

prejudice Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in view of the

16

ongoing discovery proceedings pending before Magistrate Judge

17

Beeler.

18

schedule for Defendant to file a notice of renewal of her motion

19

for summary judgment no later than seven days after the discovery

20

matter was resolved.

21

(Docket no. 64.)

Additionally, the Court set a briefing

On March 10, 2011, Magistrate Judge Beeler issued her Third

22

Order Re Discovery Submitted for In Camera Review.

23

65).

24

produce certain discovery to Plaintiff, including responses to

25

interrogatories that had been previously submitted for in camera

26

review, and disclosure of certain records, as redacted,

27

(2) Defendant has shown good cause for granting a protective order,

28

and (3) Defendant must produce certain documents, specifically,

(Docket no.

As relevant here, the Order provides (1) that Defendant must

2

1

certain portions of PBSP’s use of force policy, only if Plaintiff

2

signs the protective order that was provided to Plaintiff as part

3

of Defendant’s Letter Brief to Magistrate Judge Beeler (docket no.

4

63-1).

5

On March 17, 2011, Defendant filed and served her notice of

6

renewal of the motion for summary judgment.

7

to the renewed motion for summary judgment was due no later than

8

thirty days after Defendant’s notice of renewal was filed, or April

9

18, 2011.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff’s opposition

On April 25, 2011, Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration

11

informing the Court (1) that Defendant had served the responses to

12

interrogatories and redacted records on Plaintiff on March 17,

13

2011, (2) Plaintiff had not yet returned the signed protective

14

order to Defendant, and (3) Plaintiff had not filed opposition to

15

the renewed motion for summary judgment.

16

B.

Plaintiff’s Motion

17

1.

18

On the same date Defendant’s counsel filed the above

Briefing Deadlines and Appointment of Counsel

19

declaration, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he states that he

20

never received the Third Order Re Discovery issued by Magistrate

21

Judge Beeler on March 10, 2011.

22

the Court to provide him with that Order, and either to stay

23

further proceedings concerning Defendant’s renewed motion for

24

summary judgment or grant Plaintiff an extension of time to file

25

his opposition to such motion, as Plaintiff states he requires

26

additional time to review the Third Order Re Discovery and proposed

27

protective order and raise any objections thereto.

(Docket No. 68.)

28
3

Plaintiff asks

1

Plaintiff’s request to be provided with the Third Order Re

2

Discovery is GRANTED.

3

serve Plaintiff with a copy of that Order.

4

The Clerk of the Court has been directed to

Plaintiff’s request to stay further proceedings concerning

5

Defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

6

discovery matters addressed in the Third Order Re Discovery have

7

been reviewed thoroughly by the Court and Magistrate Judge Beeler,

8

Defendant already has provided Plaintiff with certain discovery in

9

compliance with Magistrate Judge Beeler’s Order, and Defendant

The

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

will provide Plaintiff with the remaining discovery once the

11

protective order is signed.

12

order for Plaintiff to review Magistrate Judge Beeler’s Order or

13

the protective order.

14

of this Order, has provided Plaintiff with sufficient time to file

15

his opposition to Defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment

16

should Plaintiff file objections to the Third Order Re Discovery

17

and/or the protective order.

18

unnecessary to stay further proceedings concerning Defendant’s

19

renewed motion for summary judgment.

20

Consequently, no stay is required in

Additionally, the Court, in the Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court finds it

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file

21

opposition to Defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment is

22

hereby GRANTED.

23

Conclusion of this Order.

24

A briefing schedule is set forth in the

Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint counsel for the

25

purpose of reviewing the protective order before Plaintiff signs

26

the protective order.

27

of counsel Plaintiff has made in the instant action.

28

explained to Plaintiff when denying Plaintiff’s prior requests for

This is the fourth request for appointment

4

As the Court

1

appointment of counsel, exceptional circumstances warranting the

2

appointment of counsel do not exist, as it is premature for the

3

Court to assess the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success on the merits

4

of his claims, and Plaintiff has adequately presented his claims

5

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

6

See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

7

Further, with respect to Plaintiff’s review of the protective

8

order, the terms of that order are not so complex that the

9

appointment of counsel is necessary to protect Plaintiff’s

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

interests before Plaintiff signs the order.

11

protective order does not unduly limit Plaintiff’s ability to

12

review and rely upon privileged and/or confidential information or

13

documents in preparing his opposition to Defendant’s renewed motion

14

for summary judgment, and the order provides a procedure for

15

Plaintiff to object to Defendant’s designation of certain

16

information or documents as protected.

17

request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Additionally, the

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

18

2.

19

As noted, the Court, prior to referring the discovery matters

Revision of Court’s Prior Discovery Order

20

herein to Magistrate Judge Beeler, issued an order granting in part

21

and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery.

22

As relevant to Plaintiff’s instant motion, the Court directed

23

Defendant, in response to Plaintiff’s document requests (2) and

24

(7), to submit to Magistrate Judge Beeler for in camera review “all

25

excessive force complaints against Defendant within the last five

26
27
28
5

(Docket no. 54 at 4:23-25.)1

1

years.”

2

informed Magistrate Judge Beeler that no such complaints had been

3

made.

4

Subsequently, Defendant

Plaintiff now moves the Court to expand the time-frame for

5

which excessive force complaints against Defendant must be

6

provided.

7

years” previously designated by the Court for excessive force

8

complaints made against Defendant does not adequately address

9

Plaintiff’s requests for information about such complaints because

Plaintiff contends that the period of “the last five

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the instant action concerns events that occurred in 2006, when

11

Defendant was a correctional officer, but it is Plaintiff’s

12

understanding that Defendant subsequently was promoted to a

13

sergeant and has been a sergeant for all or most of the past five

14

years.

15

correctional officer and a sergeant is crucial with respect to the

16

discovery he seeks, because as a sergeant Defendant “would not be

17

in a position to commit similar acts as described in this case.”

18

(Pl’s Motion at 2.)

19

documentation of excessive force complaints made against Defendant

20

prior to Defendant’s having been made a sergeant.

21

In particular, Plaintiff maintains the difference between a

Consequently, Plaintiff argues he requires

The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument persuasive.

Accordingly,

22
23

1

24

(2) Any and all documents in the defendant’s personell
(sic) file pertaining to any reprimands for misbehavior,
suits against her, complaints made against her by staff
or inmates, or anything that could be deemed relevant to
the allegations made by the plaintiff in this case.

25
26
27
28

The noted document requests ask for:

(7) Any and all documents of similar Control Booth
Operators shootings that the defendant has been involved
in during her time as a correctional officer.
6

1

Plaintiff’s request for a revised order pertaining to Defendant’s

2

production of documents responsive to document requests (2) and (7)

3

is GRANTED.

4

this Order, submit to Magistrate Judge Beeler for in camera review

5

all excessive force complaints made against Defendant within the

6

five years prior to her promotion to sergeant.

7

Defendant has remained a correctional officer for most or all of

8

the last five years, no submission of additional documents

9

responsive to document requests (2) and (7) will be required.

Defendant shall, as set forth in the Conclusion of

If, however,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

CONCLUSION

11

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

12

1.

13

Plaintiff's motion (docket no. 51) is GRANTED in part

and DENIED in part, as follows:
a.

14

Plaintiff’s request to be provided with Magistrate

15

Judge Beeler’s Third Order Re Discovery is GRANTED.

16

the Court has been directed to serve Plaintiff with that Order.
b.

17

The Clerk of

Plaintiff’s request for a stay of further

18

proceedings concerning Defendant’s renewed motion for summary

19

judgment is DENIED.
c.

20

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file

21

his opposition to the renewed motion for summary judgment is

22

GRANTED.
d.

23
24

DENIED.
e.

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is

Plaintiff’s request for a revised discovery order

concerning document requests (2) and (7) is GRANTED.
2.

The parties shall abide by the following discovery

schedule:
7

1

a.

No later than ten (10) days from the date of this

2

Order, Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with the signed protective

3

order, a copy of which is attached to this Order.

4

b.

No later than ten (10) days after Defendant’s

5

receipt of the signed protective order, Defendant shall provide

6

Plaintiff with all outstanding discovery covered by the protective

7

order.

8
9

c.

No later than twenty (20) days from the date of this

Order, Defendant shall submit to Magistrate Judge Beeler for in

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

camera review all excessive force complaints made against Defendant

11

within the five years prior to her promotion to sergeant, or shall

12

inform Magistrate Judge Beeler that Defendant has remained a

13

correctional officer for most or all of the past five years, in

14

which case no submission of additional documents responsive to

15

Plaintiff’s document requests (2) and (7) is required.

16

d.

No later than thirty (30) days from the date of this

17

Order, Plaintiff shall file with Magistrate Judge Beeler and serve

18

on Defendant any objections to the Third Order Re Discovery and/or

19

the protective order.

20

e.

Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff’s

21

objections no later than fifteen (15) days after the date the

22

objections are filed.

23
24

3.

The parties shall abide by the following briefing

schedule:

25

a.

Plaintiff's opposition to the renewed motion for

26

summary judgment shall be filed with the Court and served on

27

Defendant no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this

28

Order.
8

1
2

b.

twenty (20) days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed.

3
4
5
6

Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than

c.

The motion for summary judgment shall be deemed

submitted on the date the reply is filed.
4.

The Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this Order

to Magistrate Judge Beeler.

7

5.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

This Order terminates Docket no. 68.

5/17/2011

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

cc: LB

G:\PRO-SE\CW\CR.07\Williams4464.discovery&pendMOTS.wpd

9