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.

Maria Del Rosario Corona, et al v. Mike Knowles

June 19, 2012

MARIA DEL ROSARIO CORONA, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MIKE KNOWLES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL (Document 132)

Plaintiffs Maria del Rosario Corona and Andres Santana filed the instant motion to compel on June 5, 2012. After the Court granted an ex parte request to shorten time, the matter was heard on June 19, 2012, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Edward Andrews appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Kelli Hammond appeared on behalf of Defendants Kelly Harrington, Chris Chrones, Mike Knowles and S. Fraunheim.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Oscar Cruz, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant prisoner civil rights action on February 19, 2008. He alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment and his equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment based on a lockdown at Kern Valley State Prison ("KVSP"). He named Wardens Mike Knowles and Chris Chrones, as well as S. Fraunheim, Facility D Captain, as Defendants.

Mr. Cruz's mother, Maria del Rosario Corona, was substituted in as Plaintiff in June 2009 after Mr. Cruz died while in custody.

Plaintiff filed amended complaint on November 9, 2009, adding Andres Santana, Mr. Cruz's former cell mate, as a Plaintiff.

Only the Eighth Amendment claim remains.

Pursuant to the March 14, 2012, stipulation to amend the Scheduling Conference Order, the non-expert discovery cut deadline is July 2, 2012. Expert discovery is due by August 15, 2012. Trial is currently set for February 26, 2013.

Also on March 14, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel in part, finding that evidence of lockdowns subsequent to November 2006 is relevant to the claim for injunctive relief. The Court explained:

Therefore, as discussed at the hearing, Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery related to the current policy. Defendants agreed to allow Plaintiffs' counsel to view a redacted version of the current policy. Defendants must redact only the information directly related to security issues and must provide the basis for the redactions. If the redacted policy is not sufficient to allow Plaintiffs to test the policy, the Court will conduct a review of the redactions.

Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel on June 5, 2012, seeking to compel production of the unredacted versions of certain sections from the prior and current policies. Defendants opposed the motion on June 18, 2012.

DISCOVERY AT ISSUE

Pursuant to the Court's March 14, 2012, order, Defendants produced redacted versions of two CDCR policies- the policy in place during 2006 period, dated October 6, 2003 ("Exhibit A"), and the subsequent policy dated July 6, 2007 ("Exhibit B"). The ...


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.