Warner v. Tileston et al

Filing 71

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL; GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SETTING NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE; AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF REGARDING INABILITY TO SERVE DEFENDANT A. WILLIAMS by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Discovery due by 4/3/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2018)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

EARL WARNER,

Case No. 16-cv-04100-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7

C. TILESTON, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

I.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL; GRANTING PLAINTIFF
LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SETTING
NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE; AND
ORDER REGARDING THIRD NOTICE TO
PLAINTIFF REGARDING INABILITY TO
SERVE DEFENDANT A. WILLIAMS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Dkt. 38. Defendants have

12

opposed Plaintiff’s motion to compel, claiming that Plaintiff failed to “meet and confer” with them

13

about certain discovery requests. See Dkt. 40. Since filing their opposition, Defendants have filed

14

a motion for summary judgment, which includes various declarations and exhibits. Dkt. 49.

15

In an Order dated January 23, 2018, the Court directed Defendants to explain whether they

16

have already produced some of the discovery Plaintiff is seeking, or are in the process of obtaining

17

records in response to some of Plaintiff’s requests. See Dkt. 67. Defendants have since filed a

18

response to the Court’s January 23, 2010 Order. Dkt. 69.

19

Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No

20

further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16-1 is required

21

before the parties may conduct discovery. For Plaintiff’s information, the proper manner of

22

promulgating discovery is to send demands for documents or interrogatories (questions asking for

23

specific, factual responses) directly to Defendants’ counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33-34. The scope

24

of discovery is limited to matters “relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . . . Relevant

25
26
27
28

information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery may be further limited
by court order if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is
obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

1

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the

2

information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

3

benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).

4

It is not an effective or appropriate use of the Court’s limited resources for it to oversee all

5

aspects of discovery. Thus, before filing a motion to compel, the moving party must first attempt

6
7
8
9
10

to resolve the dispute informally with the opposing party. It is only when the parties are unable to
resolve the dispute after making a good faith effort to do so should they seek the Court’s
intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); N.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-1. Because Plaintiff is
incarcerated, he is not required to meet and confer with Defendants in person. Rather, if
Plaintiff’s discovery requests are denied and he intends to pursue a motion to compel, he need
only send a letter to Defendants to that effect, offering them one last opportunity to provide him

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

the sought-after information. The letter should state the specific discovery he seeks, and state the
12
reasons that Plaintiff believes he is entitled to such discovery.
13
14
15
16

Here, Plaintiff did not meet and confer with Defendants as to most of his discovery
requests, which would have afforded them with a final opportunity to address each request upon
which he now asks the Court to rule. Plaintiff only sought to meet and confer about the lastknown contact information for unserved Defendant A. Williams. As Defendants have since

17

provided the Court with Defendant Williams’s last-known address (in camera) such a request is

18

now moot. See Dkt. 40 at 4, Dkt. 46. Furthermore, the Court notes that the present motion to

19

compel was filed before Defendants pending motion for summary judgment was filed. It may be

20

that Plaintiff obtained some sought-after discovery after Defendants filed their motion for

21

summary judgment and accompanying exhibits. In addition, the record shows that Plaintiff has

22

since filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion, his declaration, a request for judicial notice, and

23

multiple exhibits in support of his opposition. Dkts. 62, 63, 64. Plaintiff has also filed a document

24

entitled, “Plaintiff’s Declaration Re: Discovery In Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary

25

Judgment.” Dkt. 70. In this filing, Plaintiff claims that he “had requested additional discovery

26

from the Defendant[s] need to support his argument(s) in opposition to the Motion for Summary

27

Judg[]ment.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff indicates that on January 28, 2018, he had sent a letter to

28

Defendants “informing [them] that the [discovery] respon[s]es were incomplete, and requesting
2

1

that they be supplemented.” Id. Plaintiff claims that on February 13, 2018, he received a response

2

from Defendants “indicating that [their] counsel is ‘. . . [i]n the process of evaluating’ the

3

Plaintiff’s letter.” Id. at 1-2. Therefore, it is evident that at this time, the parties are in need of

4

more time to conduct further discovery, and they are somehow able to meet and confer. Thus, any

5

remaining discovery issues may soon be moot. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

DENIED as premature. Dkt. 38. The Court will also set a discovery cut-off date. Because certain
discovery requests may still be pending, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental
opposition after discovery is complete. The parties are directed to abide by the briefing schedule
outlined below.
II.

INEFFECTIVE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT WILLIAMS
In an Order dated March 28, 2017, the Court issued a “Notice Regarding Inability to Serve

Defendant A. Williams.” Dkt. 30. The Court stated that it had been informed that Defendant
Williams “does not work for CDCR/SVSP and [has] no forwarding address.” Id. (citing Dkt. 27 at
1). Thereafter, as mentioned above, Defendants provided the Court with Defendant Williams’s
last-known address, and the Clerk re-served this Defendant. See Dkt. 46. However, the prison
litigation coordinator indicated that Defendant Williams may have moved out of state, and the last
known address may be outdated. On September 14, 2017, the summons mailed to Defendant

17

Williams’s last known address was returned as undeliverable because he was “not at [that]

18

address.” Dkt. 47.

19

On November 17, 2017, the Court issued its “Second Notice Regarding Inability To Serve

20

Defendant A. Williams.” Dkt. 58. The Court directed Plaintiff to provide it with a current address

21

for Defendant Williams. Id. at 1. To date, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a current

22

address for Defendant Williams.

23

While Plaintiff may rely on service by the United States Marshal, “a plaintiff may not

24

remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such service. At a minimum, a plaintiff should request

25

service upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent service defects of

26

which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the

27

marshal is unable to effectuate service and the plaintiff is so informed, the plaintiff must seek to

28

remedy the situation or face dismissal of the claims regarding that defendant under Federal Rule of
3

1

Civil Procedure 4(m). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (If service of the summons and complaint is not

2

made upon a defendant in 90 days after the filing of the complaint, the action must be dismissed

3

without prejudice as to that defendant absent a showing of “good cause.”). No later than twenty-

4

eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must provide the Court with a current address

5

for Defendant Williams, as directed below.

6

III.

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

7

1.

8
9
10
11

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is DENIED as premature. Dkt. 38. As

mentioned above, the parties are still engaged in discovery. In the interests of justice, the Court
sets a discovery cut-off date of twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order. The Court
also GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental opposition after discovery is complete.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

(Again, the parties are to abide by the new briefing schedule below.) If Plaintiff attempts to meet
12
and confer with Defendants regarding requests for the production of documents and is not satisfied
13
with the result he may file a renewed discovery motion. But in no event shall Plaintiff file such a
14
15

motion until after he has reviewed Defendants’ response to his January 28, 2018 letter, which
should be forthcoming. See Dkt. 70 at 1-2.

16
17

2.

No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must

provide the Court with a current address for Defendant Williams. Plaintiff should review the

18

federal discovery rules, Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for guidance about

19

how to determine the current address of Defendant Williams. If Plaintiff fails to provide the

20

Court with the current address of Defendant Williams within the twenty-eight-day deadline,

21

all claims against Defendant Williams will be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

22

3.

23
24
25

The parties shall abide by the following briefing schedule:
a.

The discovery cut-off date is twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this

b.

Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

Order;

26

judgment shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than sixty (60) days after

27

the date of this Order;

28

c.

Defendants shall file a supplemental reply brief no later than fourteen (14)
4

1

days after the date Plaintiff's opposition is filed.
d.

2

No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary

3

circumstances.

4

4.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

This Order terminates Docket No. 38.

Dated: March 6, 2018
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5