The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal
ORDER: 1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL; 2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES; 3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE AND M BARRA, ORDERING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSE; & 4) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. Nos. 147, 173, 180 & 182]
Currently pending before the Court are various motions filed by Plaintiff Condalee Morris, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP") in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel responses to discovery requests, a motion for costs and attorneys fees, a motion to continue, and an objection, which the Court interprets as an ex parte motion for an extension of time to file a response in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 147, 173, 180, and 182.) The Court will address Plaintiff's requests in turn.
I. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to discovery requests on April 27, 2012, nunc pro tunc to February 13, 2012. (Doc. No. 147.) Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to a request for production of documents dated December 6, 2011, interrogatories and request for production of documents dated December 6, 2011, and a Pitchess motion for discovery dated December 6, 2011.
, Exs. 1-3.) On May 30, 2012, the Court ordered Defendants to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel no later than June 15, 2012. (Doc. No. 154.) On May 31, 2012, Defendants filed a response in opposition, including Defendants' response to Plaintiff's request for production of documents--set two and Defendants' response to Plaintiff's interrogatories and request for production of documents--set one. (Doc. No. 155 & Exs. 1 & 2.)
Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any non-privileged material "that is relevant to any party's claim or defense" is within the scope of discovery. Information is relevant for purposes of discovery if "it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," even if the information is not admissible at trial. Id. The court must limit discovery if "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2) (C)(iii).
A. Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents
Plaintiff's motion to compel seeks to compel responses to his request
for production of documents, dated December 6, 2011. (Doc. No. 147 at
3-4.) In his request for production, Plaintiff seeks ten categories of
documents. Defendants Mills, Barra, Janda and White objected to these
document requests on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly
burdensome, seeks irrelevant information, and that the requests are
premature in that the pleadings are not in final form.*fn1
(Doc. No. 155 at 8-14.)
In reviewing the requests, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to requests for production 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as being overbroad and unduly burdensome at this stage in the litigation. These requests seek merits discovery regarding the prison's policies concerning inmate complaints to medical staff of being sexually assaulted by a peace officer, the prison's policies regarding medical staff and sick call procedures as to the general prison population and the administrative segregation population, all sick call request sheet forms from August 12, 2010 to the present, Plaintiff's complete medical record from August 12, 2010 to the present, Plaintiff's complete mental health record from August 12, 2010 to the present, any and all documents created by any Calipatria staff in response to a grievance filed by Plaintiff on August 12, 2010, any and all documents created by Calipatria staff from August 12, 2010 to the present concerning Plaintiff's medical care, including a copy of his medical record at Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District, the names of facility "B" medical staff that was assigned to provide medical care for the prisoners on August 12, 2012, and the names of Segregation Medical staff in A-5 that was assigned to provide medical care for prisoners on August 12, 2012. (Id.; Doc. No. 155 at 13.)
On March 27, 2012, the Court issued its decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and ruled as follows:
2. The Court GRANTS Defendants Mills and Barra's motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment violation based on sexual assault and excessive force for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court DISMISSES the claim with prejudice.
3. The Court GRANTS Defendants Barra's motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court DISMISSES the claim without prejudice.
4. The Court GRANTS Defendant White's motion to dismiss the due process claims without leave to amend.
5. The Court GRANTS Defendant Janda's motion to dismiss the due process claims ...