Friedman v. Adams et al

Filing 56

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT 35 Second Motion to Compel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 36 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 37 Motion to Extend Time Regarding Discovery is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 50 Motion to Extend Time Regarding Dispositive Matter is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 52 Third Motion to Compel is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 9/23/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15

KENNETH FRIEDMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LINDA ADAMS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01345-JCM-CWH
ORDER

16

Before the Court are Plaintiff Kenneth Friedman’s (“plaintiff”) motions (docs. # 35, # 36, # 37,

17

# 50, # 52). Also before the Court are Defendants Robert Bannister, Linda Adams, Doni K. Jennings,

18

and Joseph Hanson’s (“defendants”) responses (docs. # 41, # 42, # 43, # 53), and Plaintiff’s replies

19

(docs. # 46, # 49, # 55).1

20

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of

22

Corrections (“NDOC”) and currently incarcerated at Ely State Prison. On January 15, 2014, the Court

23

entered a screening order finding that plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to support his Eighth

24

Amendment claim for deliberate indifference. See Doc. # 9. Because this action was not referred to

25

the Court’s inmate early mediation program, the Court subsequently issued orders governing service

26

and discovery in the instant case. See Docs. # 11, # 21, # 24, # 26, # 32, # 34.

27
1

28

Plaintiff contends that defendants’ responses (docs. # 41, # 42, # 43) were untimely filed and therefore the Court
should grant his motions (docs. # 35, # 36, # 37) under Local Rule 7-2. See Doc. # 49; see also Docs. # 35, # 36, # 37, # 46.
However, the record reveals that defendants sought, and this Court granted, an extension of time for defendants to file
responses to plaintiff’s motions. See Doc. # 40. As such, the Court denies plaintiff’s request.

1
2

DISCUSSION
1.

Second Motion to Compel (doc. # 35)

3

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling his mental health records. Plaintiff also

4

objects to defendants’ responses to the second set of requests for admissions, and claims that responses

5

to the second set of interrogatories were untimely served. Plaintiff further contends that defendants

6

have been “unwilling to unblock” their phone lines to resolve any discovery disputes.

7

Defendants, in opposition, argue that plaintiff never requested production of his mental health

8

records, with defendants questioning the relevance of these records to plaintiff’s dental treatment-

9

related claims. Defendants also argue that plaintiff fails to state any specific objections to defendants’

10

responses to the second set of requests for admissions. Defendants further argue that plaintiff

11

erroneously concludes the responses to his second set of interrogatories were untimely served when

12

defendants had until June 1, 2015 and served their responses on that date. Defendants add that, in light

13

of the recent change in defense counsel, new counsel will contact and work with plaintiff to resolve

14

any outstanding discovery issues.

15

In reply, plaintiff restates his earlier assertions. Plaintiff also contends that he previously

16

requested production of his mental health records but never received them. Plaintiff then objects to

17

defendants’ responses to the second set of requests for admissions, along with defendants’ responses

18

to the second set of interrogatories, because they purportedly reflect defendants’ “persistent effort at

19

evasion” of discovery.

20

A review of plaintiff’s reply, doc. # 49, reveals that plaintiff failed to attach a copy of his

21

purported request for access to his mental health records for this Court’s review. Even if he did,

22

however, plaintiff fails to show the relevance of these records to his dental treatment-related claims.

23

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (Discovery may be obtained “regarding any non-privileged matter that is

24

relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”) (emphasis added). This Court also agrees with defendants

25

that responses to the second set of interrogatories were timely served, and plaintiff fails to identify

26

specific issues or to provide a factual or legal basis to support his objections to defendants’ responses.

27

Without more, the Court must deny plaintiff’s motion.

28

//
2

1

2.

2

Motion for Sanctions (doc. # 36)
Because plaintiff fails to provide any basis for sanctioning defendants, the Court denies the

3

instant motion.

4

3.

5
6

Motion to Extend Time Regarding Discovery (doc. # 37)
Plaintiff asks the Court to extend discovery by sixty (60) days in light of the purported issues

raised in his motion to compel (doc. # 35).

7

Defendants, in response, submit that a “limited” extension relating to the request for production

8

of documents is appropriate in this case, especially in light of the recent change in defense counsel.

9

In reply, plaintiff contends that he is entitled to an extension for all discovery, and not just with

10

respect to his request for production of documents.

11

The Court finds that only a limited extension is appropriate in this case. As such, the parties

12

shall have an additional sixty (60) days to resolve outstanding issues involving plaintiff’s request for

13

production of documents.

14

4.

15
16

Defendants ask the Court to extend the dispositive motion deadline by thirty (30) days if the
Court grants their request for a limited extension of the discovery deadline.

17
18
19
20

Motion to Extend Time Regarding Dispositive Matter (doc. # 50)

Because the Court finds good cause for the requested extension, the instant motion is granted.
5.

Third Motion to Compel (doc. # 52)
Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling definitions of medical terminology, access

to plaintiff’s NDOC medical records, and documents regarding medical examinations.

21

Defendants, in response, point out that the purpose of a motion to compel is to obtain answers

22

to interrogatories or documents that defendant failed to provide, and not to allow plaintiff to request

23

new or additional interrogatories or documents. Defendants also point out that they are under no

24

obligation to supplement their complete responses to plaintiff’s prior interrogatories. Defendants

25

further point out that they previously informed plaintiff he could access and review his NDOC medical

26

file by submitting an inmate request form to the prison medical department, but that he could not keep

27

these records and so these records were never copied or provided to plaintiff through his request for

28

production of documents.
3

1
2

In reply, plaintiff contends that defendants have failed to “cooperate” with him to resolve
discovery issues and to address defense counsel’s “substantial failure(s).”

3

Upon review, this Court finds that plaintiff erroneously brings the instant motion because he

4

seeks new or additional interrogatories or documents, which were never requested from defendant.

5

As defendant rightly points out, a motion to compel is not the proper means to request new or

6

additional interrogatories or documents. Upon review, moreover, the Court agrees with defendants

7

that they submitted complete responses to plaintiff’s prior interrogatories, and plaintiff fails to identify

8

specific issues or to provide a factual or legal basis in support of his objections. This Court further

9

finds that plaintiff’s request for access to his NDOC medical records is moot, as he was already

10

informed that he could request such access via the internal prison system. As such, the instant motion

11

is denied.

12
13
14

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel (doc.
# 35) is denied.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (doc. # 36) is denied.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time Regarding Discovery

17

(doc. # 37) is granted in part and denied in part. The parties shall have an additional sixty (60) days

18

to resolve outstanding issues involving plaintiff’s request for production of documents only.

19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time Regarding Dispositive
Matter (doc. # 50) is granted.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Compel (doc. # 52) is denied.

22

DATED: September 23, 2015

23
24
25

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28

4