Williams v. Navarro et al, No. 3:2018cv01581 - Document 57 (S.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 48 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 9/22/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Navarro et al Doc. 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 LANCE WILLIAMS, CDCR #AG-2394, 15 16 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. No. 48.] Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No.: 18cv1581-WQH(KSC) v. O. NAVARRO; E. ESTRADA; J. MEJIA; and A. SILVA, Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Lance Williams, a prisoner currently incarcerated at California Men’s 19 Colony, is proceeding in this Section 1983 civil rights action pro se and in forma 20 pauperis. [Doc. No. 19.] In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges that correctional officers at 21 the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) violated his constitutional rights 22 under the Eighth Amendment, because they were deliberately indifferent to his serious 23 medical needs. [Doc. No. 1.] 24 Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. No. 48] and 25 defendants’ Opposition thereto [Doc. No. 52]. For the reasons outlined more fully below, 26 the Court finds that plaintiff’s Motion must be DENIED. This denial is without prejudice 27 to plaintiff timely serving defendants with a new set of written discovery, because the 28 Court granted the parties’ requests to re-open discovery in a separate Order. Plaintiff is 1 18cv1581-WQH(KSC) Dockets.Justia.com 1 forewarned that he must serve defendants with any new discovery requests in a timely 2 manner (i.e., very soon after receiving a copy of this Order). The requests must be 3 narrowly tailored to seek documents and information that are relevant to the allegations 4 in the operative Complaint. If defendants’ responses to any new discovery requests are 5 not adequate, plaintiff must clearly and completely satisfy the meet and confer 6 requirements before filing another discovery motion. 7 Background 8 In his Motion to Compel, plaintiff seeks an order from the Court compelling 9 defendants to provide further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents (Set 10 One), which were served on defendants on November 9, 2019. [Doc. No. 48, at p. 1.] 11 Plaintiff attached a copy of these discovery requests to his Motion. [See Doc. No. 48, at 12 pp. 3-10.] 13 Plaintiff’s Motion also seeks an order from the Court compelling defendants to 14 respond to additional written discovery requests referred to as “Set One Supplemental” 15 and “Set Two.” [Doc. No. 48, at p. 1.] A copy of these discovery requests is attached to 16 plaintiff’s Motion. [See Doc. No. 48, at pp. 11-13.] 17 Plaintiff submitted his Motion to Compel to prison officials for mailing on July 9, 18 2020. [Doc. No. 48, at pp, 20-21.] The Motion was then filed in the Court’s docket on 19 July 20, 2020. 20 Discussion 21 Plaintiff argues in his Motion to Compel that defendants’ responses to his Requests 22 for Production of Documents (Set One) are evasive and incomplete, so the Court should 23 order defendants to provide him with further responses to these requests. [Doc. No. 48, 24 at p. 1.] In their Opposition to plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, defendants argue that the 25 Court should deny plaintiff’s request for an order compelling them to provide plaintiff 26 with further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) for several 27 reasons. 28 /// 2 18cv1581-WQH(KSC) 1 First, defendants contend plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is untimely as to Set One of 2 his requests. In their Opposition and in a supporting Declaration by counsel, defendants 3 represent they timely served plaintiff with responses to his Requests for Production of 4 Documents (Set One) on December 13, 2019. As defendants contend, the Court’s 5 Scheduling Order requires the parties to raise discovery disputes within 45 days of an 6 answer or objection. [Doc. No. 52, at p. 2, citing Doc. No. 30, at p. 2.] Here, plaintiff’s 7 Motion to Compel is untimely, because defendants’ responses were sent to plaintiff on 8 December 13, 2019, but he did not mail his Motion to Compel until July 9, 2020, long 9 after the expiration of the 45-day deadline. Plaintiff does not explain the reason for this 10 very lengthy delay. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff’s Motion to Compel must be 11 DENIED as untimely. 12 Second, as to these requests, defendants contend plaintiff failed to satisfy the meet 13 and confer requirements, which are also outlined in the Scheduling Order. [Doc. No. 52, 14 at p. 3, referring to Doc. No. 30, at p. 2 (stating that discovery motions can only be filed 15 “after the parties have met and conferred and reached an impasse about all disputed 16 issues”).] In this regard, defendants dispute plaintiff’s assertion that he mailed defense 17 counsel a letter on January 22, 2020, requesting to meet and confer about defendants’ 18 responses to his Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). 19 Defense counsel represents in defendants’ Opposition and in a supporting 20 Declaration that he does not have a copy of this alleged letter from plaintiff or anything to 21 document its receipt. In addition, plaintiff did not attach a copy of this letter to his 22 Motion. Although plaintiff did submit a page from the prison’s mail log, this page only 23 indicates plaintiff mailed something to the Office of the Attorney General on January 22, 24 2020. According to defense counsel, plaintiff had at least nine active cases that were 25 being handled by the Attorney General’s office at that time. [Doc. No. 52, at p. 3.] 26 Therefore, based on the information presented, the Court cannot conclude the meet and 27 confer requirements were satisfied as to defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s Requests for 28 Production of Documents (Set One). Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s Motion 3 18cv1581-WQH(KSC) 1 to Compel must also be DENIED for failure to satisfy the meet and confer requirements 2 set forth in the Scheduling Order. 3 Third, defendants argue that plaintiff would not be entitled to an order by the Court 4 compelling further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) 5 even if his Motion was timely and he satisfied the meet and confer requirements. [Doc. 6 No. 52, at pp. 2-3.] Defendants are correct. Plaintiff did not submit a copy of 7 defendants’ responses for the Court’s review. Nor has plaintiff submitted anything else 8 from which the Court could conclude that any of defendants’ responses to these 9 discovery requests are not adequate. 10 The Court has also reviewed and considered the copy of plaintiff’s Requests for 11 Production of Documents (Set One) that is attached to plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 12 without the responses. [See Doc. No. 48, at pp. 3-10.] In this Court’s view, plaintiff’s 13 requests are objectionable, because they are overly broad and seek production of 14 documents that are not relevant to the claims in plaintiff’s Complaint. For example, the 15 allegations in the Complaint are that defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s 16 serious medical needs, because they refused to open the door to plaintiff’s cell, so he 17 could obtain his medication. [Doc. No. 1, at pp. 3-5.] Plaintiff’s document requests 18 broadly seek production of “all records” pertaining to defendants that involve excessive 19 force, violence, or attempted violence. [Doc. No. 48, at pp. 6-7.] Without more, any 20 such records would not be relevant to the allegations in the Complaint. Therefore, even if 21 plaintiff timely filed his Motion to Compel and satisfied the meet and confer 22 requirements, he would not be entitled to an order by the Court compelling defendants to 23 provide further responses to his Requests for Production of Documents (Set One). 24 Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s Motion to Compel must also be DENIED, 25 because his Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) are objectionable as overly 26 broad and because they seek production of many irrelevant documents. 27 28 As to the discovery requests referred to as “Set One Supplemental” and “Set Two,” plaintiff states in his Motion to Compel that defendants did not respond to any of these 4 18cv1581-WQH(KSC) 1 requests. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order by the Court compelling defendants to 2 respond. [Doc. No. 48, at pp. 1; 11-13.] In their Opposition, defendants correctly 3 contend these requests were not served in a timely manner. [Doc. No. 52, at pp. 1-2.] 4 Plaintiff’s “Set One Supplemental” and “Set Two” are dated May 27, 2020, and the 5 attached proof of service indicates these requests were mailed to defendants on May 27, 6 2020. [Doc. No. 48, at p. 13.] These requests are untimely, because the Scheduling 7 Order in effect at the time they were served states as follows: “All fact discovery shall be 8 completed by all parties by January 31, 2020.” [Doc. No. 30, at p. 1 (emphasis in 9 original).] Therefore, defendants were not required to provide plaintiff with any 10 responses to these untimely requests, and the Court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to an 11 order by the Court compelling defendants to respond to his untimely discovery requests. 12 However, in a separate Order, the Court granted the parties’ requests to re-open 13 discovery, so plaintiff may re-serve defendants with these discovery requests if he does 14 so right away to meet the new deadline for completing discovery. 15 Conclusion 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to 17 18 Compel is DENIED as follows: [Doc. No. 48.] 1. As to plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), the Court 19 finds plaintiff is not entitled to an order by the Court compelling defendants to provide 20 further responses to these requests, because: (1) plaintiff’s Motion to Compel was not 21 filed in a timely manner as required by the Court’s Scheduling Order; (2) plaintiff failed 22 to establish that he satisfied the meet and confer requirements specified in the Court’s 23 Scheduling Order; and (3) plaintiff failed to show that any of defendants’ responses to 24 these requests are inadequate. 25 2. As to plaintiff’s discovery requests referred to as “Set One Supplemental” 26 and “Set Two,” the Court finds plaintiff is not entitled to an order by the Court 27 compelling defendants to respond to these requests, because they were not served in a 28 timely manner. More specifically, plaintiff served defendants with these requests on 5 18cv1581-WQH(KSC) 1 May 27, 2020, long after the January 31, 2020 deadline for completing fact discovery that 2 was in effect at that time. However, as noted above, the Court granted the parties’ 3 request to re-open discovery in a separate Order. Therefore, as outlined more fully 4 above, plaintiff may timely serve defendants with new discovery requests if he does so 5 right away to meet the new deadline for completing fact discovery. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 22, 2020 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 18cv1581-WQH(KSC)
]]>
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.
