Wolf et al v. Otter et al

Filing 168

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Kruger's Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 165 ) is DENIED. Defendant Kempf's Motion to Modify Orders re Scheduling (Dkt. 167 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ( Defendant Kempf may renew his motion for summary judgment on certain claims, as contemplated in this Court's 3/31/16 Order, by no later than 7/29/16: Case Mgmt Ddl set for 7/29/2016). Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ANDREW J.J. WOLF, R. HANS
KRUGER, and DAVID S. BEGLEY,

Case No. 1:12-cv-00526-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER; LAWRENCE
WASDEN; IDAHO STATE BOARD OF
CORRECTIONS; ROBIN SANDY, J.R.
VAN TASSEL; JAY NEILSON; IDAHO
COMMISSION OF PARDONS AND
PAROLE; OLIVIA CRAVEN; BILL
YOUNG; MARK FUNAIOLE; JANE
DRESSEN; NORMAN LANGERAK;
MIKE MATTHEWS; BRENT REINKE;
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, INC.; TIM WENGLER;
CORRISON INC., each sued in their
individual and official capacities and
their successors in office,
Defendants.

BACKGROUND
On March 31, 2016, this Court entered an order denying Defendant Kevin
Kempf’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Hans Kruger’s failure-to-protect
claim. The Court denied the motion without prejudice, however, indicating that Kempf
could refile the motion after producing additional documents to Kruger. The Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

ordered Kempf to produce those documents within 60 days, or by June 2, 2016, and to
refile any motion for summary judgment within 90 days of the order, or by July 2, 2016. 1
The Court’s March 31, 2016 order triggered two new motions, which are currently
pending. First, in a Motion to Clarify, Plaintiff Kruger asks the Court to expand the
scope of documents Kempf has been ordered to produce. See Dkt. 165. Second,
Defendant Kempf moves for permission to depose Kruger and to extend the deadline for
refiling its motion for summary judgment on Kruger’s failure-to-protect claim. See Dkt.
167. For the reasons explained below, the Court will: (1) deny Kruger’s motion to
expand the document production; (2) grant Kempf’s request to depose Kruger; and (3)
grant a limited extension of time for Kempf to refile his motion for summary judgment
on Kruger’s failure-to-protect claim.
DISCUSSION
1. Plaintiff Kruger’s Motion for Clarification
The Court will deny Kruger’s request to expand the document production. When
the Court ordered the prison to produce documents, it focused on the particular housing
unit (or units) at ISCI where Kruger resided during the one-year period before the
complaint was filed. Specifically, the Court ordered Kempf to produce documents
related to inmate-on-inmate assaults that occurred during the one-year period before the

1

The Court added three days to the 60- and 90-day deadlines to account for electronic delivery of
the Order.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

complaint was filed. See Mar. 31, 2106 Memorandum Decision & Order, Dkt. 160, at 67. Kruger says the Court should expand the scope of that production to include
documents related to inmate-on-inmate assaults that occurred in the prison’s common
areas, including the “Chapel, Pendyne, School, Gym, Recreation Yards, and Breezeways
to and from these common areas.” Motion, Dkt. 165, at 2.
The Court is not convinced that discovery of these particular documents – i.e.,
those related to inmate-on-inmate assaults at ISCI common areas – are relevant to
Kruger’s failure-to-protect claim or proportional to the needs of this case. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rather, an examination of the complaint reveals that Kruger is mainly
alleging he was subjected to an unreasonable risk of harm while residing in particular
housing units. See, e.g., Compl., Dkt. 7-3, ¶ 232-34. Under these circumstances, it is
appropriate to restrict this discovery to housing units, as opposed to expanding the scope
to include common areas. The Court will therefore deny Kruger’s Motion to Clarify.
2. Defendant Kempf’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Orders
As noted, Defendant Kempf is seeking to extend two scheduling deadlines in this
case – the discovery cutoff and the deadline for Kempf to refile his motion for summary
judgment on Kruger’s failure-to-protect claim.
Preliminarily, the Court observes that Kempf’s motion to modify is not yet ripe; in
fact, plaintiff’s response is not due until June 20, 2016. The Court will nevertheless
proceed to immediately rule on this motion for two reasons. First, as explained below,
the motion is straightforward and the substantive outcome is clear: Kempf should be
allowed to depose Kruger on the documents that are currently being produced. Second,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

this case has pended on the Court’s docket for far too long already. The case was filed in
October 2012 and it is in both parties’ best interest to move this case along as quickly as
possible.
A. Governing Legal Standard
District courts have broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). Once a district
court has issued its scheduling order, Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets
the standard for modifying the schedule. That standard requires “good cause and with the
judge’s consent” to modify a scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)’s
good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the
amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Although the existence of prejudice to the party
opposing the modification may supply reasons to deny a motion, “the focus of the inquiry
is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id.
The deadlines relevant to Kempf’s motion to modify are as follows: Defendant
Kempf’s deadline to produce additional documents is June 2, 2016. His deadline to file a
motion for summary judgment on Kruger’s failure-to-protect claim is July 2, 2016.
B. Kruger Deposition
Kempf’s first request – in essence, a request to reopen discovery for the limited
purpose of deposing Kruger – is reasonable under the circumstances. This case is
unusual in that the Court ordered defendant to produce documents after the discovery
deadline had already passed and after the defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. Because these documents are being produced after the discovery deadline, it
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

makes sense to allow Kempf the opportunity to depose Kruger – even after the discovery
period has closed.
Under these circumstances, defendant has established diligence. Although Kempf
theoretically could have deposed Kruger regarding these documents earlier in the
litigation, that approach would not have made sense, as the Court had not resolved the
parties’ disputes regarding the scope of discovery. Further, the Court does not believe
Kruger would be prejudiced simply by making himself available for deposition.
For these reasons, the Court will grant Kempf’s motion to modify the scheduling
deadline to the extent that it will reopen discovery for the limited purpose of allowing
Kempf to depose Kruger. This deposition must take place on or before June 30, 2016.
C. Extension of Deadline for Kempf to Refile a Motion for Summary Judgment
The Court is not convinced that Kempf needs until August 29, 2016 to refile his
motion for summary judgment. Rather, the Court believes a shorter extension – to and
including July 29, 2016 – is sufficient under the circumstances.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Kruger’s Motion for Clarification (Dkt. 165) is DENIED.
2. Defendant Kempf’s Motion to Modify Orders re Scheduling (Dkt. 167) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as explained above.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

3. Defendant Kempf may renew his motion for summary judgment on certain
claims, as contemplated in this Court’s March 31, 2016 Order, by no later than July 29,
2016.
DATED: June 2, 2016

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6