Fernandez v. Centric et al

Filing 256

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Discovery Status Conference held on 1/16/2014 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Kevin Fernandez, In Pro Per (Telephonically); Def Counsel: Nathan H astings (Telephonically); FTR #: 10:02:37 a.m. - 12:31:03 p.m.; Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. Plaintiff's 249 Notice to Defendants of DSM and NCI Pages to Photocopy Pursuant to Court's Order has been resolved; no further action is necessary. Plaintiff's 250 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental to #248 Memorandum is Response to #246 Order is GRANTED; the court finds good cause for defendants to produce a legible "work schedule." Plaintiff's 160 Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See attached order for details. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KEVIN FERNANDEZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DR. CENTRIC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:12-cv-00401-LRH-WGC
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
January 16, 2014

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

Katie Lynn Ogden

REPORTER:

FTR

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): Kevin Fernandez, In Pro Per (Telephonically)
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): Nathan L. Hastings (Telephonically)
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: Discovery Status Conference
10:02 a.m. Court convenes.
I.

Preliminary Matters
A.

Notice to Defendants of DSM and NCI Pages to Photocopy Pursuant to
Court’s Order (Doc. # 249)

Plaintiff represents he is satisfied with the documents produced by defendants concerning
photocopies from the DSM and NCI. Therefore, to the extent Doc. # 249 seeks any action by the
court or defendants, this matter has been resolved and no further action is necessary.
B.

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental to 248 Memorandum in Response to
246 Order (Doc. # 250)

Plaintiff indicates the document produced concerning a “medical personnel roster”1 is
illegible. After brief discussion regarding the document at issue, the court finds good cause for
defendants to produced a legible document. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental to 248 Memorandum in Response to 246 Order (Doc. # 250) is GRANTED.

1

Plaintiff clarifies that the document is a “work schedule.”

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3:12-cv-00401-LRH-WGC
Date: January 16, 2014
Page 2
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. # 160)

Plaintiff has submitted a Memorandum (Doc. #248) which clarifies what discovery
disputes remain at issue that were originally identified in plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
(Doc. # 160). The memorandum consists of fifteen (15) different sets of discovery requests that
are at issue. The court has also reviewed and considered several documents relating to
outstanding discovery disputes including: defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Production of Documents and Things # 159 (Doc. # 192), plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Supplemental Interrogatory Responses (Doc. # 226), plaintiff’s Memorandum Correlating the
Subjects of Discovery Disputes to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses # 160
(Doc. # 235), and defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Memorandum Correlating Discovery
Disputes # 235 (Doc. # 241).
After discussion is had with regard to the discovery disputes, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel (Doc. # 160) is deemed GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
(1)

Defendant Cox’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set One]
(Doc. # 192-6):
Interrogatory No. 4 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 5 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 6 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 8 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.

(2)

Defendant Cox’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set Two]
(Doc. # 192-6):
Interrogatory No. 1 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response;
Interrogatory No. 2 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.

(3)

Defendant Gedney’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set One]
(Doc. # 192-6):
Interrogatory No. 1 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3:12-cv-00401-LRH-WGC
Date: January 16, 2014
Page 3
Interrogatory No. 3 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 4 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement her response, specifically as to subcategories (b), (c), and
(d);
Interrogatory No. 5 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 6 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 7 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.
(4)

Defendant Palmer’s Response to Interrogatories [Set One] (Doc. # 192-6):
Interrogatory No. 4 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response;
Interrogatory No. 6 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 7 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 8 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 10 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.

(5)

Defendant Scott’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set One]
(Doc. # 192-6):
Interrogatory No. 3 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response, specifically as to subcategories (b), (c), and
(d);
Interrogatory No. 5 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 6 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response;
Interrogatory No. 7 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 8 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3:12-cv-00401-LRH-WGC
Date: January 16, 2014
Page 4
Interrogatory No. 9 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response;
Interrogatory No. 10 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.
(6)

Defendant Scott’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set Two]
(Doc. # 192-6):
Interrogatory No. 1 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response;
Interrogatory No. 3 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response;
Interrogatory No. 4 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.

(7)

Defendant Scott’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set Three]
(Doc. # 192-6):
Interrogatory No. 4 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response.

(8)

Defendant Frtiz’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set Two]
(Doc. # 192-6):
Interrogatory No. 1 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 3 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.

(9)

Defendant Schober’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set One]
(Doc. # 192-6):
Interrogatory No. 1 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 2 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 3 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 4 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3:12-cv-00401-LRH-WGC
Date: January 16, 2014
Page 5
Interrogatory No. 6 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 8 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 10 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.
(10)

Defendant Walsh’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set One]
(Doc. # 241-1):
Interrogatory No. 1 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement her response;
Interrogatory No. 2 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient,
supplemental response as to Interrogatory No. 1 should supply a sufficient
response to this interrogatory;
Interrogatory No. 4 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement her response;
Interrogatory No. 6 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 7 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 8 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 9 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement her response;
Interrogatory No. 10 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 11 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement her response;
Interrogatory No. 13 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.

(11)

Defendant Walsh’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set Two]
(Doc. # 241-1):
Interrogatory No. 1 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement her response;

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3:12-cv-00401-LRH-WGC
Date: January 16, 2014
Page 6
Interrogatory No. 4 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.
(12)

Defendant Fritz’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set One]
(Doc. # 241-1):
Interrogatory No. 1 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 4 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement her response.

(13)

Defendant Centric’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set One]
(Doc. # 247-1):
Interrogatory No. 1 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 3 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 4 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 5 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 6 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response;
Interrogatory No. 7 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response;
Interrogatory No. 8 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 9 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 10 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.

(14)

Defendant Centric’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set Two]
(Doc. # 247-2):
Interrogatory No. 4 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 5 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient.

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
3:12-cv-00401-LRH-WGC
Date: January 16, 2014
Page 7
(15)

Defendant Centric’s Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories [Set Three]
(Doc. # 247-3):
Interrogatory No. 2 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 3 - Denied, Defendant’s response is deemed sufficient;
Interrogatory No. 4 - Granted, Defendant’s objection is overruled; defendant is
directed to supplement his response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
12:31 p.m. Court adjourns
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:
/s/
Katie Lynn Ogden, Deputy Clerk