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.

Gaines v. California Dept. of Corrections

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 13, 2017

THURMAN GAINES, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF 33, 37) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

         Plaintiff Thurman Gaines, a state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Defendant Horowitz's motion to compel and motion to modify the scheduling order.

         I.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff filed a complaint in this action on April 16, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's complaint and first amended complaint were dismissed for failure to state a claim on September 11, 2015, and February 11, 2015, respectively. (ECF Nos. 10, 16.) On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff's second amended complaint was screened, and this action is proceeding against Defendant Horowitz for deliberate indifference. (ECF No. 20.) Defendant Horowitz filed an answer to the complaint on August 18, 2016. (ECF No. 27.)

         On August 18, 2016, the scheduling order issued setting the pretrial deadlines in this action. (ECF No. 28.) On September 9, 2016, a modified scheduling order was filed. (ECF No. 30.) On November 1, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to compel and a motion for a thirty day extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust. (ECF Nos. 32, 33.) Defendant's motion for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment was granted on November 3, 2016. (ECF No. 34.) Defendant's motion for failure to exhaust is due thirty days after Plaintiff files his supplemental responses to Defendant's discovery requests. On December 13, 2016, Defendant filed a declaration stating that Plaintiff had not served an opposition to the motion to compel. (ECF No. 35.) On December 14, 2016, the undersigned was assigned as the magistrate judge in this matter. (ECF No. 36.) On February 17, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 37.)

         II.

         MOTION TO COMPEL

         A. Legal Standard

         Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Information need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

         Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4.

         Discovery is not limited to the issues raised in the pleadings but encompasses any matter that bears on or reasonably could lead to other matter that bears on any issues that is or may be in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). However, discovery does have ultimate and necessary boundaries. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. at 351. Finally, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Federal Rules should be administered to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

         B. Discussion Defendant propounded discovery requests regarding Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies on September 8, 2016. (Dec. of A. De La Torre-Fennell ¶ 4, ECF No. 33-1.) Plaintiff served responses to the discovery requests on October 20, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff did not fully respond to the discovery requests and seeks to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses.

         1. Interrogatories

         Defendant contends that Plaintiff's responses to interrogatory nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 generally states that he has previously responded to these interrogatories in his response to interrogatory no. 2 or that the information requested is included in the complaint and such responses are inadequate. Defendant argues that Plaintiff should be compelled to supplement his responses.

         a. Interrogatory No. 3

         Interrogatory no 3 states “[f]or each appeal you identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, describe in detail all specific steps you have taken to exhaust the appeals you contend you filed that are relevant to the allegations in your First Amended Complaint, including any inquiries regarding the status of the appeal. (Defendant Horowitz's Request for Responses to Interrogatories Re: Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, ECF No. 33-1 at 5.[1]) In response to interrogatory number 3, Plaintiff responded:

On 6-26-14, Plaintiff filed Health Care Appeal Log. No.#MCSP-HC-14045270 (pertaining to the reinstatement of his education). On 8-23-14, Plaintiff pursued Health Care Appeal Log No. #MCSP-HC-14045270 (pertaining to being housed on the Upper tier and my disagreement to the medication I was currently receiving). On or/about 11-3-14, Plaintiff pursued Health Care Appeal Log No. #MCSP-HC~14045270 to the Third Level; On 7-21-14, Plaintiff filed Health Care Appeal (No Log Number) pertaining to actor Horowitz and Doctor Rudas failure to initiate paper-work to change my housing status to Ground-floor. On 7-23-14, Defendant Horowitz accommodated plaintiff's request for Ground-floor status.

         (Pl.'s Response to Def. Horowitz's Request for Interrogatories RE: Exhaustion of Administrative ...


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.