Williams v. Ortega et al

Filing 88

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 85 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/15/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Case No.: 18cv547-LAB-MDD
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

O. ORTEGA, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[ECF No. 85]

15
16

On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”), a state

17
18

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a motion to compel

19

Defendants O. Ortega, R. Valencia, S. Bustos, F. Lewis, A. Bowman, and M.

20

Kimani (collectively, “Defendants”) to supplement their response to his

21

request for production of documents, set two, number two. (ECF No. 85 at 1).

22

Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider its September 17, 2020 Order

23

denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel his request for production of documents,

24

set four and denying his request that the Court issue a subpoena on his

25

behalf. (Id. at 2-3). Defendants filed a response in opposition on October 15,

26

2020. (ECF No. 87).

27

//
1
18cv547-LAB-MDD

I.

1

MOTION TO COMPEL

2

First, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to supplement their

3

response to request number two of his second set of requests for production of

4

documents. (Id. at 1). Request two asks Defendants to “[p]rovide [an]

5

overview diagram or photo of A-Yard prison housing units included needed to

6

show jury a play by play of the incident to show location of plaintiff and

7

defendants as well [as] a photo of P.S.U Facility to show holding cages and

8

place where offices sit to show where plaintiff was and where defendants

9

were when plaintiff requested medical care.” (ECF No. 55 at 10).

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). The responding party is responsible for all items in “the

15

responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

16

Actual possession, custody or control is not required. Rather, “[a] party may

17

be ordered to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if

18

that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the

19

entity who is in possession of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162

20

F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. cal. 1995). A party propounding discovery may seek an

21

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

22

contains unfounded objections, to discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

37(a)(3)(B).

24

Plaintiff contends Defendants only provided an overview diagram for

25

the P.S.U. Facility and not a photo. (ECF No. 85 at 1). Plaintiff explains that

26

an actual photo “would be more adequate to convey [a] message to [the] jury.”

27

(Id.). Defendants produced diagrams of the A-Yard, P.S.U., and housing unit
2
18cv547-LAB-MDD

1

at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. (ECF No. 87-1 at 2).

2

Defendants do not have any other responsive documents. (Id.).

3

The Court cannot compel Defendants to produce documents that do not

4

exist or are not in their possession, custody, or control. Accordingly, the

5

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion with respect to request number two.
II.

6
7

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Second, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its September 17, 2020

8

Order, which denied his motion to compel Defendants to produce documents

9

responsive to his requests for production of documents, set four, and his

10

request that the Court issue a non-party subpoena. (ECF Nos. 85 at 2-3; 76).

11

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), district courts have

12

the power to reconsider a previous ruling or entry of judgment. Under Rule

13

59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a previous ruling if “(1) the district

14

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court

15

committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust,

16

or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat. Ins. Co.

17

v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation

18

omitted).

19

In denying Plaintiff’s prior motion, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s

20

discovery requests were sent on September 1, 2020 and that the discovery

21

deadline was September 7, 2020. (ECF No. 76 at 2). Thus, the Court denied

22

Plaintiff’s motion because the discovery requests were untimely, but noted

23

that “the relevance of the requested information to any of Plaintiff’s claims is

24

not obvious.” (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff claims the Court should reconsider its

25

prior Order because he “is a layman, pro se, indigent with mental health

26

impairments and is oblivious to the discovery rules and procedures.” (ECF

27

No. 85 at 2).
3
18cv547-LAB-MDD

Plaintiff’s pro se status does not demonstrate grounds for

1
2

reconsideration. “Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure

3

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

4

1987). “The hazards which beset a layman when he seeks to represent

5

himself are obvious. He who proceeds pro se . . . does so with no greater

6

rights than a litigant represented by a lawyer, and the trial court is under no

7

obligation to become an ‘advocate’ for or to assist and guide the pro se layman

8

. . . .” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365 n.5 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting

9

United States v. Pinkey, 548 F.2d 305, 311 (10th Cir. 1977)).

Accordingly,

10

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 85 at 2-

11

3).

12

III. CONCLUSION

13

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion in

14
15
16

its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2020

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4
18cv547-LAB-MDD