Hammler v. Hernandez et al

Filing 73

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [ECF No. 65 ]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 6/22/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALLEN HAMMLER,

Case No.: 18-cv-0259-CAB-MDD
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

J. HERNANDEZ, Correctional
Officer, and A. MAGALLANES,
Correctional Officer,

15
16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY RESPONSES
[ECF No. 65]

Defendants.

17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION

19

Plaintiff Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se

20

and in forma pauperis, initiated this action against Defendants J. Hernandez

21

and A. Magallanes (collectively, “Defendants”) by filing a Complaint pursuant

22

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1, 25). Presently before the Court is

23

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Response, filed on April 24, 2020,

24

nunc pro tunc. (ECF No. 65).

25
26

For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to
compel discovery responses. (ECF No. 65).

27
1
18-cv-0259-CAB-MDD

1
2

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain

3

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

4

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in

6

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District Courts have broad discretion to

7

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or

8

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

9

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

10

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of

11

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response

12

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as

13

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive

15

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be

16

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another

17

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state

18

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that

19

objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must

20

specify the part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The

21

responding party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s

22

possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Actual possession,

23

custody or control is not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to

24

produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a

25

legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in

26

possession of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620

27

(N.D. Cal. 1995). A party propounding discovery may seek an order
2
18-cv-0259-CAB-MDD

1

compelling disclosure when the opposing party fails to respond, or contains

2

unfounded objections, to discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
III. DISCUSSION

3

Plaintiff’s motion does not specify which discovery requests are at issue,

4
5

and instead asks for “all requested evidence” from Set Two, along with any

6

“omitted discovery” from Defendants’ responses. (ECF No. 65 at 1).

7

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion for its untimeliness along with

8

Plaintiff’s failure to meet the burden of proof under Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 37. (ECF No. 69). Regardless of this, and out of an abundance of

10

caution, Defendants addressed each discovery request in Plaintiff’s Request

11

for Production, Set Two. (See Id.).

12

1.

13

Timeliness
As a threshold issue, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s Request for

14

Production, Set Two, was untimely because it was served less than 33 days

15

before the close of discovery. (ECF No. 69 at 2). Although the Court must

16

construe pleadings liberally, “[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of

17

procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

18

Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d

19

896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Courts, however, have “a duty to ensure that

20

pro se litigants do not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim

21

due to ignorance of technical procedural requirements.” Balistreri v. Pacifica

22

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by

23

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). “‘[S]trict time limits . . .

24

ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from a pro se

25

prisoner plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court

26

deadlines.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing

27

Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967)).
3
18-cv-0259-CAB-MDD

The Court waives the timeliness requirement in this instance because

1
2

of Plaintiff’s status as a prisoner proceeding pro se. Accordingly, the Court

3

overrules Defendants’ objection to timeliness.

4

2.

5

Request for Production, Set Two
Plaintiff’s motion requests Defendants to produce all evidence from his

6

Request for Production (“RFP”), Set Two, along with any omitted evidence

7

from their response dated March 20, 2020. (ECF No. 65 at 1). Plaintiff

8

supports his request by merely alleging that Defendants have not been

9

forthcoming. (Id.). He contends that Defendants are intentionally delaying

10

the production of documents, hindering his ability to timely review and

11

prepare his case. (See Id. at 2).

12

On May 20, 2020, Defendants provided a detailed Response in

13

Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 69). Defendants contend their

14

response was made in good faith and assert that any delay in production due

15

to the COVID-19 pandemic has not prejudiced Plaintiff due to the extension

16

of discovery deadlines. (ECF No. 69-1).

17

On March 03, 2020, Defendants received Plaintiff’s RFP, Set Two.

18

(ECF No. 69-1 at 2). Plaintiff’s RFP propounded 14 requests, numbered 14

19

through 28. (See Id. at 7-20). On March 20, 2020, Defendants responded to

20

Plaintiff’s RFP, Set Two, by objecting and providing substantive responses

21

where applicable. (Id.). Due to direct impact of COVID-19 on prison

22

operations within the California Department of Corrections and

23

Rehabilitation, Defendants were unable to explicitly reply to the existence of

24

certain responsive documents. (Id. at 2) [Declaration of Deputy A.G.

25

Cassandra J. Shryock]. In light of this, through continued communication

26

with Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”), Defendants were able

27

to supplement their initial reply to provide substantive responses to
4
18-cv-0259-CAB-MDD

1

Petitioners RFP. (Id. at 2-4, and 21-34). Specifically, on April 24, May 7, and

2

May 18, 2020, Defendants supplemented their responses to unequivocally

3

and substantively reply to each unanswered request as responsive documents

4

were located by RJD staff. (Id.).

5

Although Defendants were unable to fully and unequivocally respond to

6

the initial request, their efforts have not been discounted. Defendants have

7

taken thorough measures to ensure responsive documents have been located

8

at RJD and provided them to Plaintiff.

9

Prior to Defendants’ supplemental responses, on April 21, 2020, nunc

10

pro tunc, Plaintiff filed this motion requesting “omitted” responses which

11

have subsequently been provided by Defendants in their supplemental

12

responses. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the omitted responses is

13

DENIED as moot. Plaintiff also requests that Defendants provide “all the

14

requested evidence” in his RFP, set two. However, plaintiff does not point to

15

or cite any deficiencies in Defendants’ responses. Let alone, Plaintiff’s motion

16

is the first time Defendants were made aware of any dissatisfaction to their

17

responses. The Court cannot make assumptions on its own behalf as to

18

which requests Plaintiff believes are lacking. Defendants made significant

19

efforts to respond to each request. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

20

motion for further response.
IV.

21
22

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel

23

discovery response. (ECF No. 65).

24

Dated: June 22, 2020

25
26
27
5
18-cv-0259-CAB-MDD