The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul S. Grewal United States District Court United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL AND OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES (Re: Docket No. 57, 64, 70, 71)
On December 18, 2012, Plaintiffs Daniel Ager, et al ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants Anthony Hedgepath, et al ("Defendants") appeared at a hearing before the court regarding disputes over 18 depositions and production of documents.*fn1 At the hearing, the court ordered Defendants to 19 produce the witnesses Plaintiffs sought to depose and ordered the parties to meet and confer and 20 provide to the court a letter brief detailing the substance of the dispute.*fn2
On December 28, 2012, the parties submitted a letter consisting of nine requests for production of documents that were in dispute.*fn3
The court set a hearing on February 5, 2013 for those nine disputes.*fn4 The court continued the hearing at the parties' request to February 12, 2013.*fn5
On February 8, 2013, Plaintiffs submitted a status report certifying the discovery disputes to be*fn6 heard at the February 12 hearing, and on February 11, 2013, Defendants submitted their response 4 to the status report.*fn7 On February 12, 2013, the parties appeared for a hearing on the various 5 discovery disputes.
Based on the parties' latest submissions to the court, five discovery disputes remain.*fn8
The parties are familiar with the underlying case and the dispute here, and so the court provides only its 8 decision and a summary of its reasoning.
A.Documents Relating to Interrogatory I and Lt. Warfield's Deposition
Testimony Plaintiffs seek supplemental responses from Defendant Belinda
response to Interrogatory I, which asked, "Who approved double celling
inmate Beaver  with
inmate Ager?" Hedrick responded that Lt. Warfield ("Warfield"), who
was the on-duty supervisor 14 at thtat time, signed the form
transferring inmate Beaver to the same cell where inmate Alan Ager 15
("Ager") was housed, and was subsequently killed by Beaver.*fn9
In his deposition, Warfield 16 indicated that he would not
have approved the double celling arrangement and in fact did not 17 18
approve the arrangement. Plaintiffs seek to have Hedrick supplement
her response and to depose 19 further Hedrick and Warfield. Defendants
assert that Hedrick's response was correct and oppose 20 the request
for further deposition as untimely.*fn10
actual decision to double cell Beaver and Ager. Plaintiffs are entitled to an answer as to who made The court agrees with Plaintiffs. Although signed the form, he disavowed making the the decision, not just who signed the form approving the transfer. Defendants shall make all 4 reasonable investigation as to who made the decision, including interviewing all individuals who 5 might have made the decision or might know the identities of those who did.
B.Incident Package and Internal Affairs Investigation Report Relating
to the April 28, 2009 Assault/Use of Force by Officer Mejia on Ager
Plaintiffs next seek discovery of an incident package regarding an
"assault/use of force"
incident between Ager and Officer Mejia. Defendants have agreed to
produce the incident package 10 and have represented to the court that
they have already mailed the incident package to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also seek discovery of the Internal Affairs investigation of the incident ("IA Report") subject to a protective order. Although Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' failure to allege 13 14 a conspiracy prevents discovery of this information,*fn11 Plaintiffs' theory of the case involves Defendants' deliberate indifference, and a confrontation between Ager and a correctional officer 16 would be relevant to that claim. As Plaintiffs have argued, information contained in the IA Report 17 is relevant to whether Defendants were on notice that Ager was at risk. Defendants shall produce 18 the IA Report subject to the stipulated protective order.*fn12
C.Beaver's Profile in the Incident Package and C-Files for Inmates ...