Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01907/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01907-8/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 

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G.A. THUMSER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-1907-LKK-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants Cate, Coyle, Dickinson, Duncan, Tapiz, Thumser, and 

Van Heerde violated his Eighth Amendment rights. This order addresses seven motions filed by 

plaintiff, including four motions to compel, a motion to propound additional discovery, a motion 

to file a supplemental complaint, and a motion for sanctions. As stated below, all of plaintiff’s 

motions are denied. 

I. Background 

On September 10, 2013, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. ECF No. 51. 

It required that all discovery requests pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34, or 

36 be served not later than October 7, 2013. Id. It also required that any motions to compel 

discovery and any motions to amend be filed by December 9, 2013. Id. 

///// 

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 101 Filed 04/01/14 Page 1 of 5
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

 On October 29, 2013, defendants requested an extension of time to answer plaintiff’s 

interrogatories and requests for admission for defendant Cate, and interrogatories, requests for 

admission, and requests for production to defendant Dickinson. ECF No. 58. On October 31, 

2013, the court granted the request, and required that defendants Cate and Dickinson’s responses 

be due on or before December 19, 2013. ECF No. 59. Thereafter, defendants Cate and 

Dickinson sought a second, and then a third extension of time to serve their responses. ECF Nos. 

65, 77. The court granted those requests, and ordered that their responses be due on or before 

February 1, 2014. ECF Nos. 68, 79. 

II. Plaintiff’s December 19, 2013 Motion to Compel (ECF No. 70) 

 On December 19, 2013, after discovery had closed, plaintiff filed a motion to compel 

defendants Thumser and Van Heerde to provide more complete and accurate responses to his 

request for production of documents. Thumser and Van Heerde’s responses to plaintiff’s 

requests, submitted as exhibits to plaintiff’s motion, were timely served on plaintiff on October 

30, 2013. ECF No. 70, Exs. D, E. Plaintiff’s motion, however, is untimely, as discovery closed 

on December 9, 2013. A scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the 

deadline despite exercising due diligence.1 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that good cause supports his implied request to 

modify the schedule. As such, his motion to compel must be denied as untimely. 

III. Plaintiff’s January 2, 2014 Motion to Compel (ECF No. 71) 

 In his second motion to compel, plaintiff requests an order compelling defendants 

Thumser and Van Heerde to provide more complete responses to his requests for admissions and 

 1

 The court notes that plaintiff is an active litigator in this court and has repeatedly been 

informed of this Rule 16 standard. See, e.g., Heilman v. Lyons, No. 2:09-cv-2721-JAM-KJN, 

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12784, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2013) (“A schedule may be modified 

upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party 

demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising due diligence.”); Heilman v. 

Chernis, No. 2:11-cv-42-JAM-EFB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150342, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 

2012) (same); Heilman v. Vojkufka, No. 2:08-cv-2788-KJM-EFB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26004, 

at *14 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011) (same). 

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 101 Filed 04/01/14 Page 2 of 5
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

interrogatories, and for defendants Tapiz and Coyle to provide more complete responses to his 

requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production. Thumser, Van Heerde, 

Tapiz and Coyle timely served responses to these discovery requests on November 4, 2013. ECF 

No. 71, Exs. D, F, H, I, J, K, M, N; ECF No. 78, Brice Decl. ¶ 3. Like his first motion to compel, 

plaintiff’s second motion to compel is denied as untimely. 

IV. Plaintiff’s January 21, 2014 Motion for Additional Discovery (ECF No. 80) 

 Plaintiff seeks leave of court to propound additional discovery on defendant Van Heerde. 

Plaintiff’s motion is based on the ground that Van Heerde’s discovery responses were allegedly 

incomplete and “mischaracterized” the facts. ECF No. 80 at 1-2. Essentially, plaintiff again 

seeks to compel further discovery responses from defendant Van Heerde. Plaintiff has not shown 

that good cause exists to modify the discovery and scheduling order. The motion is denied as 

untimely. 

V. Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 84) 

 Plaintiff requests leave of court to file a supplemental complaint pursuant to Rule 15(d) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff wishes to supplement his complaint with “text” 

that he “transcribed from the original memorandum document authored by defendant M. Van 

Heerde . . . on or about February/March 2011.” ECF No. 84 at 1-2. 

 A supplemental pleading adds allegations regarding an event that happened after the date 

of the pleading to be supplemented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The events discussed in plaintiff’s 

proposed “supplement” to his complaint occurred before he filed his amended complaint on 

December 28, 2011. ECF No. 19. Thus, Rule 15(d) does not permit the requested addition to the 

complaint. Moreover, the deadline for filing motions to amend, as set by the scheduling order, 

was December 9, 2013. Plaintiff does not request modification of the schedule or otherwise show 

that good cause would justify such a modification. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the 

complaint is denied. 

VI. Plaintiff’s February 6 and 12, 2014 Motions to Compel (ECF Nos. 87, 88) 

 Plaintiff moves to compel defendant Cate to provide more complete responses to his 

interrogatories and requests for admissions. He also moves to compel defendant Dickinson to 

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 101 Filed 04/01/14 Page 3 of 5
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

provide more complete responses to his interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for 

production. As noted, Cate and Dickinson were granted an extension of time, until February 1, 

2014, to serve these responses on plaintiff. Given these circumstances, the court finds that good 

cause exists to modify the discovery deadline for the purpose of resolving the instant motions to 

compel. 

 As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court of (1) which 

discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of defendant’s responses are 

disputed, (3) why he believes defendant’s responses are deficient, (4) why defendant’s objections 

are not justified, and (5) why the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the 

prosecution of this action.2 See, e.g., Brooks v. Alameida, No. CIV S-03-2343 JAM EFB P, 2009 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9568, (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (“Without knowing which responses plaintiff 

seeks to compel or on what grounds, the court cannot grant plaintiff’s motion”); Ellis v. Cambra, 

No. CIV 02-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109050, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. 

Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of 

his motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information 

sought is relevant and why Defendant’s objections are not justified.”). 

 According to plaintiff, nearly all of Cate and Dickinson’s responses to his discovery 

requests are “vague, evasive, or misleading.” ECF No. 87 at 4, 6. In an effort to “specify” how 

the responses are misleading or evasive, plaintiff merely reproduces defendants’ response or notes 

that the defendant raised an objection. He does not attempt to explain the relevance of his 

requests. Nor does he explain how any of the responses or objections are deficient, and no 

obvious deficiencies stand out to the court. See Masterson v. Campbell, No. CIV S-05-0192 JAM 

DAD P, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82067, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2009) (“The court will not 

review each of plaintiff’s discovery requests and each of defendants’ responses thereto in order to 

 2

 Court records reflect that plaintiff has previously been advised of these standards as well. 

See Heilman, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150342, at *7; see also Heilman v. Lyons, No. 2:09-cv2721-KJN, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66365, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2011) (“Plaintiff is further 

advised that, as defendants noted, plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the answers provided is not a 

sufficient basis on which to seek a motion to compel further responses. If plaintiff has evidence to 

impeach a defendant’s response, he may do so at trial.”) 

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 101 Filed 04/01/14 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

determine whether any of the defendants’ responses are somehow deficient.”). Plaintiff does not 

satisfy his burden in moving to compel further responses by complaining generally that the 

responses are “not adequate.” In addition, plaintiff’s contention that there are inconsistencies 

among some of Cate’s responses is not a matter properly resolved through a motion to compel. 

Any factual disputes must be resolved at trial. For all of these reasons, plaintiff’s motions to 

compel are denied. 

VII. Plaintiff’ Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 90) 

 Lastly, plaintiff seeks Rule 37(c) sanctions against defense counsel for his alleged abuse 

of the discovery process. As set forth above, all five of plaintiff’s discovery motions are denied. 

The court finds no cause for sanctions, and plaintiff’s motion for such is denied. 

VIII. Order 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s discovery motions (ECF Nos. 70, 71, 80, 87, 88) are denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental pleading (ECF No. 84) is denied. 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 90) is denied. 

DATED: April 1, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-01907-MCE-EFB Document 101 Filed 04/01/14 Page 5 of 5