Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Frank Orr v. Hernandez

February 2, 2012

FRANK ORR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HERNANDEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justin L. Quackenbush Senior United States District Judge

ORDER ON DISCOVERY

I. SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Defense counsel has responded to the court's Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 111) stating that he was not aware of the court's December 16, 2011 Order (ECF No. 106) because the Order was attached to the Notice of Electronic Filing ("NEF") he received from the court. Construing the December 16, 2011 NEF docket text as a "text order", counsel only adhered to the docket text. The court has verified that an error occurred in docketing of ECF No. 106 and that this Order was not attached to the NEF. Counsel is advised that 1) this court never enters text Orders; and 2) text orders are always delineated in the Docket Text of the NEF as "TEXT ONLY". The court is satisfied with counsel's response to the Show Cause Order.

II. DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO COMPEL

On September 23, 2011, summary judgment was denied, in part, because of the inadequate factual record. In that Order, as well as subsequent Orders on December 16, 2011 and December 30, 2011 the court directed the Defendant and the Warden of the Mule Creek State Prison to produce discovery relevant to this case. In its December 16, 2011 Order, the court directed the Defendant to file a document log and a status report concerning discovery. Defendant has now filed both documents. On December 27, 2011 the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel the Production of Documents (ECF No. 109). The court ordered the Defendant to respond to the Motion to Compel. ECF No. 111. Defendant has responded in opposition to the Motion. ECF No. 114. On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a letter concerning outstanding discovery and on January 15, 2012 he filed another letter requesting imposition of sanctions on counsel for the Defendant for conduct during discovery. The Defendant has opposed the request for sanctions. ECF No. 118. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed another discovery motion.

The court has reviewed the parties' latest filings and Plaintiff's Motions.

A. Missing Documents

The Defendant states the following documents could not be located by the Defendant, in the Plaintiff's central file, or in the records of the Mule Creek State Prison:

a. All handwritten reports allegedly made by the Defendant;

b. Rules Violation Report Log No. C07-06-037; and

c. CDC 115 referenced in the CDC 128-G dated July 20, 2006;

B. Documents Located and Produced

Defendant has informed the court that she has produced the following documents to Plaintiff:

a. Grievances Log Nos.: 06-1893 (See ECF No. 112, Ex. A); 07-00565; 06-1308; 06-1239 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.