Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01505/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01505-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN WARE,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. McDONALD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-1505 TLN KJN P

ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING 

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 17, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, and a 

request to extend the discovery deadline. Plaintiff’s motion was accompanied by a document 

styled, “Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.” 

Although framed in the context of a request for injunctive relief, plaintiff seeks a translated copy 

of High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) prison video recordings from the use of force interviews of 

plaintiff produced by defendants Hanks and Crandall dated June 4, 2011, and July 1, 2011, as 

well as various other documents. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring that plaintiff’s confidential 

discovery, including such videotapes, be maintained through completion of the instant civil 

action. Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to compel as untimely brought, and argue that the 

motion for injunctive relief fails to meet the governing standards. As set forth below, the court

denies and partially grants the pending motions.

Case 2:12-cv-01505-TLN-KJN Document 92 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

A. Motion to Compel Discovery

On April 8, 2015, the undersigned issued a discovery and scheduling order which required 

that any motion to compel discovery must be filed by July 24, 2015, and that all requests for 

discovery shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that date. Thus, discovery requests 

were to be served on or before May 26, 2015. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, signed on August 9, 2015, is untimely. 

Moreover, defendants provided evidence that plaintiff’s second request for production of 

documents was not received. Plaintiff claims he served the second request on July 13, 2015. 

However, pursuant to the governing scheduling order, plaintiff was required to serve all discovery 

requests on or before May 26, 2015. Therefore, plaintiff’s second request, although not received 

by defendants, was untimely propounded. 

Defendants properly objected to plaintiff’s third request for production of documents 

which was served on July 13, 2015, almost two months after the deadline to propound discovery

expired. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to the third request is denied as untimely.

B. Motion to Reopen Discovery

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 

‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 

Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). 

In his motion, plaintiff provided a copy of a request entitled, “Second Request for 

Production of Documents,” but the request is dated August 9, 2015.” (ECF No. 89 at 11.) 

Defendants claim they have not been served with this request, and note that plaintiff did not 

provide a copy of the request served on an unknown date and not received by defendants, or a 

copy of the third request for production of documents served late on July 13, 2015. Defendants 

provided a copy of plaintiff’s discovery requests and responses, as well as a copy of the third 

Case 2:12-cv-01505-TLN-KJN Document 92 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

request for production of documents. Comparison of the third request for production of 

documents untimely served on defendants (ECF No. 91-2 at 76-79), with the second request for 

production of documents submitted by plaintiff (ECF No. 89 at 11-12), reveals that the requests 

are fairly similar, other than plaintiff included a few pages of definitions in the earlier request. In 

addition, the documents sought are relevant to plaintiff’s claims. After reviewing both of 

plaintiff’s motions, it is unclear whether plaintiff was granted access to review the use of force 

interview videotapes, and whether plaintiff was provided the other relevant documents sought. 

However, it appears that plaintiff’s first request for production of documents was focused on 

policies and procedures rather than on obtaining reports or videotapes that were generated as a 

result of the incidents herein. Thus, it appears that an extension of the discovery deadline is 

appropriate for the limited purpose of ensuring that plaintiff has received access to the pertinent 

videotapes, and obtained other relevant documents. 

Good cause appearing, defendants are directed to respond, within thirty days, to the 

second request for production of documents. (ECF No. 89 at 11-12.) To the extent that plaintiff 

seeks videotapes, defendants shall make such videotapes available for plaintiff to watch so that he 

may make notes while he watches them. It appears that plaintiff attempted to obtain access to 

these videotapes, but was denied because Associate Warden Jaime found the records were 

confidential. (ECF No. 90-1 at 9 (February 26, 2015 letter).) However, the use of force evidence 

is highly relevant to the instant claims and plaintiff is entitled to discover such evidence.

The letters provided by plaintiff allege that all written portions of the use of force 

evidence are contained in the rules violation report, which plaintiff may personally obtain or may 

already have. (ECF No. 90-1 at 10.) However, if there are investigative reports that resulted 

from the use of force investigations that are not included in the rules violation report, plaintiff is 

also entitled to copies of such reports, and defendants shall also produce them.

Although filed in the context of a request for injunctive relief, the court construes 

plaintiff’s motion as a request to preserve trial evidence or seek additional discovery, related to 

his underlying motion to compel discovery. To the extent plaintiff seeks to have the use of force 

videotapes transcribed, such request is denied. If defendants have prepared such a transcript, or if 

Case 2:12-cv-01505-TLN-KJN Document 92 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

they prepare such a transcript for use at summary judgment or at trial, defendants shall provide 

plaintiff with a copy of such transcript or transcripts. As set forth above, plaintiff is entitled to 

view the use of force videotapes in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment and to 

prepare for trial. Defendants shall make arrangements with prison officials to ensure that plaintiff 

is granted access to review such videotapes. Similarly, defendants shall ensure that such 

videotapes are preserved for use at trial.

In all other respects, discovery remains closed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 89) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline (ECF No. 89) is partially granted.

3. Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 90) is partially granted.

4. Within twenty-one days from the date of this order, defendants shall:

a. Respond to plaintiff’s “Second Request for Production of Documents,” signed 

August 9, 2015. (ECF No. 89 at 11-12.) 

b. Make arrangements for plaintiff to watch the use of force videotapes, and to 

take notes while he views them. If investigative reports or other written documents were created 

in connection with the videotapes that were not included in the rules violation report, defendants 

shall provide plaintiff with copies of such documents. If transcripts have been prepared from the 

videotapes, defendants shall provide plaintiff with copies of such transcripts. Defendants shall 

ensure that the videotapes are preserved for trial.

5. Any motion to compel further production of responses to the second request for 

production of documents shall be filed on or before November 17, 2015.

6. In light of the partial extension of discovery, the pretrial motions deadline, except 

motions to compel discovery, is continued to January 18, 2016. 

Dated: October 7, 2015

/ware1505.dsc2

Case 2:12-cv-01505-TLN-KJN Document 92 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 4