(PC) Martinez v. Garsha et al, No. 1:2009cv00337 - Document 85 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions For Leave To File An Amended Complaint Naming Does, 1, 2, 3, With Prejudice (Docs. 77 , and 80 ), ORDER Setting Pretrial Dispositive Motion Deadline For September 8, 2014 (Docs. 17 and 50 ), ORDER Requiring Defendants To Supply Dates Corresponding With Undated Isolation Logs Within Thirty Days (Doc. 83 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/13/2014. (Dispositive Motions filed by 9/8/2014) (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LUIS MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, 11 12 v. 13 Case No. 1:09-cv-00337-LJO-SKO (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT NAMING DOES 1, 2, AND 3, WITH PREJUDICE GARSHA, et al., (Docs. 77 and 80) Defendants. 14 ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 15 16 (Docs. 17 and 50) 17 ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO SUPPLY DATES CORRESPONDING WITH UNDATED ISOLATION LOGS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 18 19 (Doc. 83) 20 _____________________________________/ 21 22 I. Procedural History 23 Plaintiff Luis Martinez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 24 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 24, 2009. This 25 action for damages is proceeding against Defendants Garcha, Lines, Hacker, Fouch, and Does 1, 2, 26 and 3 for violating Plaintiff s rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States 27 Constitution during Plaintiff s incarceration at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and 28 State Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”), located in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff s claim arises from 1 events which occurred during May and June 2007 in the Administrative Segregation Unit (“ASU”) 2 at SATF. 3 On July 15, 2013, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff s 4 fourth motion to compel. (Doc. 62.) Defendants Garcha, Lines, Hacker, and Fouch 5 (“Defendants”) were ordered to serve amended responses within thirty days and Plaintiff was 6 ordered to file a motion to compel within thirty days from the date of service of the responses, if 7 one was necessary. (Id.) In the order, the Court noted that although the deadline to amend the 8 pleadings had expired, if any of the discovery at issue in Plaintiff s motion to compel led to the 9 identification of the Doe defendants, good cause may exist to modify the scheduling order to name 10 the Doe defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). (Doc. 62, p. 19 n. 8; see also Doc. 50.) 11 Following issuance of that order, Defendants sought a fourteen-day extension of time to 12 serve their amended discovery responses and Plaintiff sought a thirty-day extension of time to file 13 a motion to compel, both of which were granted. (Docs. 65, 74.) Plaintiff did not thereafter file 14 another motion to compel and discovery is now closed. 15 However, on October 21, 2013, Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint, which is 16 presently lodged with the Court. (Doc. 73.) On October 23, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 17 file a motion seeking leave to amend supported by a showing of good cause within thirty days or 18 his lodged complaint would be stricken from the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). (Doc. 74.) 19 On October 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend, in compliance with 20 the Court s order, and Defendants filed their opposition on November 13, 2013. (Docs. 77, 79.) 21 Plaintiff then filed a supplemental motion seeking leave to amend on December 5, 2013, and 22 Defendants filed their opposition to the supplemental motion on December 6, 2013. (Docs. 80, 23 81.) On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition to his first motion to amend, 24 and on December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition to his supplemental motion to 25 amend. (Docs. 82, 83.) 26 Plaintiff s motions to amend have been submitted upon the record without oral argument 27 pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), and for the reasons which follow, Plaintiff s motions are denied. 28 /// 2 1 II. Discussion 2 A. 3 Modification of Scheduling Order to Amend to Name Doe Defendants 1. Standard “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered. . . .” Johnson v. 4 5 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and 6 citation omitted). Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified „if it cannot reasonably be met despite 8 the diligence of the party seeking the extension. ” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 9 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). “If the party seeking the 10 modification „was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to modify should not be 11 granted.” Id. 12 2. 13 Background In this case, the deadline for amending the pleadings was March 25, 2012. (Doc. 25.) In 14 its order of July 15, 2013, however, the Court recognized a possibility of amendment to name Doe 15 defendants 1 through 3, if Plaintiff could demonstrate that he was able to identify the Doe 16 defendants through the discovery obtained following the resolution of his fourth motion to 17 compel, which included, in part, entitlement to amended discovery responses.1 See Crowley v. 18 Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff should be given opportunity through 19 discovery to identify unknown defendants). (Docs. 50, 62.) The Court was clear that Plaintiff 20 needed to show good cause, which requires him to demonstrate due diligence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 16(b)(4). (Doc. 62.) 22 Plaintiff is paraplegic and his claim arises out of injuries he sustained from a broken 23 shower bench. (Doc. 1, Comp.) Plaintiff was transferred to SATF on May 18, 2007, and upon his 24 arrival at the ASU, he discovered that the bench seat in the shower for disabled inmates was 25 broken. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he complained but nothing was done, and on June 27, 2007, he 26 slipped and fell in the shower. In the course of attempting to steady himself by grabbing the 27 28 1 At the time the order was issued, there was a possibility that Defendants amended discovery responses might result in the filing of an additional motion to compel. (Doc. 62, 22:4-5 & 22:25-23:2.) Plaintiff did not file another motion to compel, however, and discovery is now closed, as previously stated in section I. 3 1 bench, the end of the bench “severed and collapsed.” (Id., 5:16.) Plaintiff fell to the shower floor, 2 seriously injuring himself. (Id.) 3 Doe 1 was allegedly a third watch correctional officer and Does 2 and 3 were allegedly 4 second watch correctional officers. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff now seeks to amend to substitute M. 5 Uranga, M. Lefler, and A. Rodriguez for Does 1, 2, and 3. In his first motion, Plaintiff represents 6 that he located three inmate witnesses, one of whom provided him with a declaration, and that he 7 has identified the Doe defendants as Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez. (Doc. 77.) In his 8 supplemental motion, filed after receipt of Defendants first opposition, Plaintiff states that on 9 August 8, 2013, he obtained a declaration from inmate Nordlof, which he had been “diligently” 10 seeking. (Doc. 80, pp. 2-3, Martinez Dec., ¶4.) Plaintiff states that he notified the Court on 11 August 26, 2013, he did not need any subpoenas duces tecum because he had identified the Doe 12 defendants through the information provided by inmate Nordlof. (Martinez Dec., ¶5.) 13 Plaintiff also attests that on April 10, 2013, he obtained ASU isolation log book pages from 14 the Public Records Act coordinator (“PRA”) at SATF and he “came across a couple names 15 identifying the Doe Defendants.” (Id., ¶7.) Further, on September 4, 2013, Plaintiff obtained 16 ASU isolation log book pages via the amended discovery responses Defendants were ordered by 17 the Court to provide in the order of July 15, 2013. (Id., ¶8.) 18 Defendants oppose Plaintiff s first motion to amend on the grounds that he failed to show 19 good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). Defendants argue that under Rule 16(b)(4) and the Court s 20 operative order, Plaintiff must show due diligence and he must show that he obtained the names of 21 the Doe defendants through the discovery received as a result of the July 15, 2013, order partially 22 granting Plaintiff s motion to compel. Defendants assert that Plaintiff was served with amended 23 responses in compliance with the order in August 2013, yet he waited until the end of October 24 2013 to attempt to amend, and he failed to show good cause for that more than sixty-day delay. In 25 Defendants opposition to Plaintiff s supplemental motion to amend, Defendants argue that 26 Plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the documents provided by inmate Nordlof in August 2013 27 allowed him to identify the three Doe defendants and that Plaintiff s explanation demonstrates that 28 he did not get the information via the discovery resulting from the Court s order of July 15, 2013. 4 1 In his first reply, Plaintiff states, in relevant part, that he received Defendants amended 2 discovery responses on September 4, 2013, and those responses allowed him to confirm the Doe 3 defendants identities. (Doc. 82.) In his second reply, Plaintiff states that although the names of 4 the Doe defendants were not provided by Defendants, he was able to confirm their identities 5 through the isolation logs provided by Defendants with their amended discovery responses. (Doc. 6 83.) Plaintiff contends that the information provided by inmate Nordlof and the isolation logs 7 shows the identities of Does 1, 2, and 3. (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that over time, he asked 8 multiple inmates if they were housed in the SATF ASU in 2007 and it was not until August 2013 9 that he encountered inmate Nordlof at California State Prison-Lancaster (“Lancaster”), who 10 provided Plaintiff with a declaration and documents identifying the Doe defendants. (Id.) 11 12 3. Findings Although Plaintiff argues that he has been diligently pursuing the Doe defendants 13 identities through discovery and Defendants have resisted, Plaintiff s broad, general arguments 14 regarding his overall attempts to discover the Doe defendants identities throughout the course of 15 this litigation overlook the Court s orders, which define the parameters regarding amendment. 16 Throughout the course of discovery, the Court has resolved the parties discovery disputes, 17 resulting in the narrowing of the remaining discovery issues. On July 3, 2012, the Court stated 18 that the deadline to amend the pleadings was March 25, 2012, but there was good cause to extend 19 the deadline to allow Plaintiff to identify the Doe defendants through discovery, limited to the 20 discovery extension identified in the order. (Doc. 50.) Subsequently, approximately one year 21 later, on July 15, 2013, the Court recognized that it “if any of the discovery at issue [in Plaintiff s 22 final motion to compel led] to the identification of the Doe defendants, good cause may exist to 23 modify the scheduling order, limiting to naming the Does.” (Doc. 62, p. 19 n.8.) 24 Thus, in accordance with the Court s operative order, to the extent that Plaintiff may be 25 entitled, under Rule 16(b)(4), to a modification of the amended pleadings deadline to allow him to 26 name the Doe defendants, he must demonstrate that he obtained the identities of the Doe 27 defendants through the final round of discovery provided by Defendants in compliance with the 28 order of July 15, 2013. 5 1 Turning now to the issue of good cause to modify the scheduling order to permit 2 amendment, Plaintiff s first motion, filed on October 30, 2013, provides that (1) he identified the 3 Doe defendants as Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez and (2) he gave prior notice on August 26, 2013, 4 that, following his transfer to Lancaster, he identified the Doe defendants as Uranga, Lefler, and 5 Rodriguez. (Doc. 77, 1:26-2:1 & p. 2, Martinez Dec., ¶2; Doc. 66, 3:7-9.) Plaintiff s second 6 motion, filed on December 5, 2013, provides that he was able to identify the Doe defendants 7 through information provided to him by inmate Nordlof on August 8, 2013, information which 8 Plaintiff diligently sought through discovery. (Doc. 80, Martinez Dec., ¶¶4-6.) Plaintiff also 9 attests that he received isolation log books on April 10, 2013, from the PRA coordinator and he 10 came across a couple of names of Doe defendants; and he attests he received isolation log books 11 from Defendants on September 4, 2013, which he needed to confirm the Doe defendants 12 identities. (Id., Martinez, Dec., ¶¶7, 8.) From these three sources, Plaintiff was purportedly able 13 to identify the Doe defendants. (Id., Martinez Dec., ¶10.) 14 15 a. Information from Inmate Nordlof Turning first to the information provided by inmate Nordlof, Plaintiff transferred from 16 SATF to Lancaster sometime between June and August 2013, and he obtained a declaration and 17 some documents from inmate Nordlof on August 8, 2013. (Doc. 63; Doc. 80, Martinez Dec., ¶4.) 18 Clearly, this information, which was obtained almost eighteen months after the expiration of the 19 amended pleadings deadline, was not provided to Plaintiff by virtue of any response by 20 Defendants to the Court s order of July 15, 2013. Further, as discussed further in section II(B)(1), 21 inmate Nordlof did not, through his declaration or the documents he provided, identify the Doe 22 defendants as Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez. (Doc. 66, pp. 61-63, Nordlof Dec; Doc. 80, pp. 723 32.) 24 25 b. Isolation Log Books Pages Produced by PRA Coordinator There are two issues with respect to the isolation log books provided by the SATF PRA 26 coordinator. First, those records were produced in April 2013. Thus, not only were the records 27 not produced in response to the order of July 15, 2013, but they were received four months before 28 6 1 Plaintiff stated he had identified the Doe defendants and six months before he submitted his 2 amended complaint. 3 Second, the responsive documents are part of the record in this action and they contradict 4 Plaintiff s representation that he came across the Does names in the isolation log book pages. 5 (Doc. 59, court record pp. 20-25.) In fact, the isolation log book pages produced by the PRA 6 coordinator do not contain any staff names and they could not have assisted Plaintiff in identifying 7 Officers Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez. 8 9 c. Amended Discovery Responses Received September 4, 2013 Finally, Plaintiff asserts that he received necessary information regarding the identities of 10 the Doe defendants from Defendants on September 4, 2013. This information would fall within 11 the terms of the Court s July 15, 2013, order, if Plaintiff could show that the identifying 12 information was obtained only through the receipt of those amended discovery responses. 13 However, Plaintiff identified the Doe defendants as Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriquez prior to his 14 receipt of those amended discovery responses. (Doc. 66, 2:4-9.) Further, as discussed in section 15 II(B)(3), the documents do not actually identify the Doe defendants as Uranga, Lefler, and 16 Rodriguez but instead simply show that on three particular days, Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez 17 were on duty, along with nine to eleven other officers. (Doc. 83, pp. 6-8.) 18 19 d. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not, and cannot, show that he was 20 able to identify Officers Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez as Does 1 through 3 only after receiving 21 Defendants amended discovery responses on September 4, 2013. In placing the parties on notice 22 that under certain limited circumstances, Plaintiff might be able to show good cause to amend to 23 name the Doe defendants if their identities were ascertained only through resolution of the parties 24 final discovery dispute, the Court recognized the possibility - however unlikely - that the 25 information provided to Plaintiff by Defendants in compliance with the order of July 15, 2013, 26 might, for the first time, place Plaintiff on notice of the identities of the Doe defendants. Indeed, 27 in its order issued the prior year on July 3, 2012, the Court was clear that the extension of the 28 amended pleadings deadline was limited to identifying the Doe defendants and it extended “no 7 1 further than necessary to allow Plaintiff to amend should he discover the Doe defendants 2 identities within the limited discovery extension set forth in the previous paragraph;” and the 3 limited discovery at issue was that resolved in the order of July 15, 2013. (Doc. 50, 2:18-24; Doc. 4 62.) Implicit in the Court s rulings has been its recognition that Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, is 5 6 entitled to some additional leniency. However, Plaintiff s two motions show that he did not 7 identify the Doe defendants as a result of the amended discovery responses received on September 8 4, 2013, in compliance with the order of July 15, 2013. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff 9 has not met his burden of demonstrating good cause to modify the scheduling order to amend. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 11 B. 12 While the absence of good cause ends the determination whether Plaintiff s motions to Identification of Does 1, 2, and 3 as Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez 13 modify the scheduling order to amend should be granted, the Court is additionally concerned 14 about what can only be described as the speculative identification of the Doe defendants as 15 Officers Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez. In addition to the limitations placed on the modification 16 of scheduling orders under Rule 16(b)(4), discussed above, Rule 15(a)(2) provides that the Court 17 should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires, and Rule 11(b) provides that in 18 presenting any filing to the Court, Plaintiff is representing that to the best of his knowledge, 19 information, and belief, after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the filing is not being 20 presented for an improper purpose and the factual contentions have evidentiary support. Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (quotation marks omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (quotation marks omitted). 22 Plaintiff alleges under penalty of perjury that Doe 1 (purportedly Uranga) was a third 23 watch correctional officer, Doe 2 (purportedly Lefler) was a second watch correctional officer, and 24 Doe 3 (purportedly Rodriguez) was a second watch correctional officer.2 25 26 27 28 2 (Doc. 1, Comp.) The Court notes that Plaintiff previously represented to the Court that Does 2 and 3 (purportedly Lefler and Rodriguez) needed to be replaced by adding carpenters Mike Walls and Duane Halvorsen. (Doc. 59.) In as much as the carpenters could not have been correctional officers Doe 2 and Doe 3 by virtue of the pleading allegations, the Court treated Plaintiff s motion as one to add new parties and denied it. (Doc. 62.) At best, Plaintiff was trying to drop Does 2 and 3 but add Walls and Halvorsen as new parties, unaware that this was improper given its untimeliness. At worst, Plaintiff was mischaracterizing Does 2 and 3 as Walls and Halvorsen in an effort to “timely” substitute them in as parties. 8 1 However, the evidence and briefing submitted do not support Plaintiff s unsupported assertion that 2 Does 1, 2, and 3 are Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez. 3 4 1. Nordlof Declaration and Documents First, the declaration of inmate Nordlof is of no assistance with respect to identification of 5 the Doe defendants because Nordlof does not purport to identify Does 1, 2, and 3. (Doc. 66, pp. 6 61-63.) At best, inmate Nordlof is an eye witness to (1) the existence of a broken shower bench in 7 ASU during the relevant time period, (2) general staff awareness of the condition of the shower 8 bench, and (3) a repair of the bench following Plaintiff s injury. Further, inmate Nordlof s 9 declaration shows that the documents provided to Plaintiff were provided to support of the 10 existence of general unsatisfactory conditions of confinement and inmate protests over those 11 conditions, not to assist Plaintiff in identifying Does 1, 2, and 3. 12 With respect to the documents themselves, they are pages to a “Crime/Incident Report,” 13 authored by Defendant Hacker, concerning a tactical cell extraction of Southern Hispanic inmates 14 in the SATF ASU who were refusing to relinquish their food trays. (Doc. 80, pp. 7-32.) The 15 incident occurred on February 28, 2007, which was approximately two months prior to Plaintiff s 16 transfer to SATF; and per inmate Nordlof s declaration, the report was provided to Plaintiff as 17 evidence of inmate protests undertaken to gain the attention of higher-level staff regarding 18 unsatisfactory conditions of confinement. 19 Per the report, at approximately 10:55 a.m. on February 28, 2007, Defendant Hacker 20 ordered extraction team #1, which consisted of Sergeant Holmes and Officers Hevener, Uranga, 21 Lefler, Cavagnaro, Jiminez, and Rodriguez, to extract inmates Pena and Soto from their cell. 22 Someone underlined by hand the names Hevener, Uranga, and Rodriguez on page 1 of the report. 23 However, the February 28, 2007, incident is not related to the events giving rise to 24 Plaintiff s claim in this action and it occurred approximately two months prior to Plaintiff s 25 transfer to SATF. Inmate Norlof attested to unsatisfactory general conditions of confinement at 26 SATF ASU between February 2006 and 2007, and he described various protests undertaken by 27 inmates, with the report attached as evidence of one such protest. There is simply no support for a 28 reasonable inference that this report identified Does 1, 2, and 3 or otherwise assisted Plaintiff in 9 1 identifying Does 1, 2, and, 3. Plaintiff states that once he saw the report, he knew that Uranga, 2 Lefler, and Rodriguez are Does 1, 2, and 3 but how this could be the case given the nature of the 3 reports contents and the passage of seven years if left entirely unexplained. While the Court 4 recognizes that employees sometimes change shifts and/or work double shifts, it nevertheless 5 notes that all three officers were involved in the cell extraction – which occurred during a single 6 shift - while the complaint describes officers working on two different shifts. 7 2. 8 Isolation Log Book Pages Provided by PRA Coordinator With respect to the documents provided by the SATF PRA coordinator in April 2013, as 9 previously discussed, Plaintiff s assertion that the isolation logs contained the Doe defendants 10 names is contradicted by the isolation logs, which do not name any staff. 11 3. 12 Isolation Log Book Pages Provided by Defendants Finally, the Court is faced with the issue of the isolation log book pages received on 13 September 4, 2013. Plaintiff did not provide those records with either motion to amend and, as 14 previously noted, he identified the Doe defendants prior to receiving those log book pages. 15 In his second reply, filed on December 23, 2013, Plaintiff provides what he claims are the 16 three log book pages. Each page contains three sections: doctor s calls, officers roster, and report 17 of any unusual incidents. Pages 1 and 2 list fourteen officers under “officers roster” and page 3 18 lists twelve officers. Page one includes Lefler and Uranga s names, page two includes Lefler and 19 Rodriguez s names, and page three includes Rodriguez s name. 20 Plaintiff asserts that receipt of this discovery allowed him to confirm the names of the 21 previously identified Doe defendants. The only thing Plaintiff s evidence confirms, however, is 22 that three officers who were members of an extraction team on February 28, 2007, were also on 23 the officers roster for the SATF ASU, presumably in May or June 2007. 3 In as much as there 24 were many other officers named in the report concerning the February 28, 2007, incident and there 25 were many others officers listed on the officers rosters, the Court is not persuaded that these 26 documents support the existence of a reasonable inference that Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez are 27 Does 1, 2, and 3. 28 3 Doc. 62, Order re POD 14, 17:23-24. 10 1 In sum, although Plaintiff states that Officers Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez are Does 1, 2, 2 and 3, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has, with any degree of reasonable certainty, 3 determined that the Doe correctional officers are Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez. As such, even if 4 Plaintiff s motions to modify the scheduling order had been granted based on a showing of good 5 cause, justice would not be served by permitting the speculative amendment sought by Plaintiff. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), 15(a)(2). 7 C. 8 The scheduling order filed on July 25, 2011, set the pretrial dispositive motion deadline for Pretrial Dispositive Motion Deadline 9 June 4, 2012. (Doc. 17.) However, on July 3, 2012, the Court issued an order which, in relevant 10 part, granted Defendants motion for an extension of the pretrial dispositive motion deadline, with 11 the deadline to be set once all discovery was completed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). (Doc. 50, 2:2512 3:4.) Discovery is now closed, and Plaintiff s motion for modification of the scheduling order to 13 amend has been denied. Accordingly, the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is set for 14 September 8, 2014. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 15 D. 16 Finally, in reviewing the operative briefs discussed herein, the Court notes a letter to Miscellaneous 17 Plaintiff from Defendants counsel dated October 23, 2013. (Doc. 83, p. 10.) In the letter, counsel 18 represented that the Litigation Department at SATF was assisting counsel with obtaining 19 documents which would provide Plaintiff with the dates that correspond to the undated isolation 20 logs produced by Defendants in compliance with the order of July 15, 2013. (Id.) However, in his 21 reply dated December 23, 2013, Plaintiff states that Defendants produced more than three hundred 22 pages of undated isolation logs, and he requests that the Court order Defendants to provide the 23 dates. (Id., 2:25-3:3.) 24 Defendants were required to produce records responsive to POD 14, limited to May and 25 June 2007. (Doc. 62.) Plaintiff timely notified Defendants of a concern regarding undated records 26 and Plaintiff was assured by counsel on October 23, 2013, that he would be provided with dates to 27 correspond with the undated logs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). It appears, however, that as of 28 December 23, 2013, the dates had not been provided. 11 1 Any failure to follow through with the representation that the date deficiency will be cured 2 must be remedied. Defendants were notified their discovery responses were incomplete and they 3 are required, within thirty days, to follow through with their representation that they will produce 4 the dates corresponding to the undated isolation logs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A), (B); Hunt v. 5 County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts have broad discretion to manage 6 discovery and control course of litigation). 7 III. Order 8 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 9 1. Plaintiff s motions to modify the scheduling order to amend, filed on October 30, 10 2013, and December 5, 2013, are DENIED, with prejudice, for lack of good cause under Rule 11 16(b)(4); 12 2. Alternatively, Plaintiff s motion to amend to substitute Correctional Officers 13 Uranga, Lefler, and Rodriguez for Does 1, 2, and 3 is DENIED, with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 14 15(a); 15 3. The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is September 8, 2014; and 16 4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall 17 supply Plaintiff with the dates that correspond to the undated isolation logs, produced via the 18 amended response to POD 14. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 13, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
