Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01146-25/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL WARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CATE, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01146-LJO-MJS 

(PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 98)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 90)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on an Eighth Amendment 

failure to protect claim against Defendants Walker, Davis1, Prokop, Spralding, and 

Fellows.

On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order 

denying his motion to compel. (ECF No. 98.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 

101.) Plaintiff filed no reply and the time for doing so has passed. The matter is deemed 

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

1

Formerly Defendant D. McGaha.

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 112 Filed 07/07/16 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

Discovery in this matter initially was set to close on July 4, 2015. (ECF No. 48.) 

On June 4, 2015, Plaintiff sought a ninety day extension of the discovery deadline. (ECF 

No. 61.) On June 9, 2015, the Court granted the motion in part, affording Plaintiff until 

July 24, 2015 to complete discovery. (ECF No. 64.) Pursuant to the Court’s original 

scheduling order, all responses to written discovery requests were due forty-five days 

after the request was first served. (ECF No. 48.) 

On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff served his “First Set of Interrogatories for Defendant 

Walker” on Defendants. (ECF No. 98 Ex. C). On August 5, 2015, Defendants served a 

response on Plaintiff, objecting to this set of interrogatories as untimely since

Defendants’ responses to the interrogatories were due after the discovery deadline

passed. Id. Defendants did not provide any substantive responses. Id. At some point 

between June 9, 2015 and July 24, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendants a “Motion for 

Production of Documents” as well as one set of interrogatories each to Defendants 

Fellows, Davis, Spralding, and Prokop; two sets of interrogatories to Defendant Walker, 

and one set of admission to Defendant Walker. Id. On August 14, 2015, Defendants 

again objected to Plaintiff’s requests on the grounds they were untimely served and 

would require Defendant to respond beyond the discovery deadline. Id. Defendants did 

not provide a substantive response.

On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty day extension of time to file 

a motion to compel. (ECF No. 77.) In ruling on the motion, the Court noted that its prior 

forty five day extension did not afford Plaintiff sufficient opportunity to propound 

discovery, receive a response, and file any associated motions to compel. (ECF No. 86.) 

Therefore, the Court granted the motion for extension of time and afforded Plaintiff an 

additional thirty days to file a motion to compel. Plaintiff was advised that no further 

extensions of time would be granted, and that any motion to compel must indicate “(1) 

which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the 

defendant's responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the defendant's responses are 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 112 Filed 07/07/16 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

deficient, (4) why the defendant's objections are not justified, and (5) why the information 

he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action.”

On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 90.) 

On January 28, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel on the grounds that 

Plaintiff did not include Defendants’ responses to his requests or specify which 

responses were deficient. (ECF No. 96.) 

The instant motion followed. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s order 

denying his motion to compel, pursuant to “Rule 72-303(c)).” (ECF No. 98.) The Court 

construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 303(c). 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

A. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may object to any 

nondispositive orders entered by a magistrate judge. Rule 72(a) then requires the 

district judge to “consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order 

that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Likewise, Local Rule 303(c) states: “A 

party seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate judge's ruling shall file a request for 

reconsideration by a Judge and serve the Magistrate judge and all parties. Such request 

shall specifically designate the ruling, or part thereof, objected to and the basis for that 

objection.

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” Marlyn 

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).

“A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence 

for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised in earlier litigation.” Id.

Furthermore, “‘[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 112 Filed 07/07/16 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

with the Court’s decision, and ‘recapitulation . . .’” of that which was already considered 

by the court in rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 

1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. 

Supp. 834, 856 (D. N.J. 1992)). Similarly, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party seeking 

reconsideration show that “new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist 

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds 

exist for the motion . . . .”

B. Analysis

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s denial of his motion to 

compel discovery. The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion because it did “not 

include any of the Defendants’ responses to his discovery requests, let alone those that 

he deems deficient.” (ECF No. 96.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff “fail[ed] to 

argue why he believe[d] Defendants’ responses [were] deficient and/or objections [were]

unjustified.” Id.

Plaintiff now states that he inadvertently failed to include Defendants’ responses 

and objections in his original motion to compel; he attaches Defendants’ responses and 

objections to his motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 98 Ex. C.) 

Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s discovery requests solely because they were 

untimely. (ECF No. 98 Ex. C.) In countering Defendants’ objection, Plaintiff attributes the 

untimeliness of his discovery requests to his poor physical and mental health and 

“systemic obstacles” such as the inefficient prison mail system and Plaintiff’s wrongful 

confinement in the administrative segregation unit. (ECF No. 98 at 3-5.) 

However, even if Plaintiff had not encountered these obstacles, the Court 

previously recognized that the June 9, 2015 order granting Plaintiff a forty-five day 

extension of time to file his discovery requests did not afford Plaintiff sufficient time to 

propound any additional discovery requests before the discovery deadline lapsed. (ECF 

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 112 Filed 07/07/16 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

No. 86.) Thus, Plaintiff’s untimeliness may be at least partially attributable to the Court’s 

admittedly confusing June 9, 2015 order.

In light of these facts, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and 

grant his motion to compel. Defendants will be directed to serve responses to Plaintiff’s 

discovery requests within twenty-one (21) days of this Court’s order. Plaintiff will then be 

afforded fourteen (14) days after his receipt of Defendants’ responses to file a new 

motion to compel, if necessary. Plaintiff is once again advised that any motion to compel 

should indicate: “(1) which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, 

(2) which of the defendant's responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the defendant's 

responses are deficient, (4) why the defendant's objections are not justified, and (5) why 

the information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action.” 

Walker v. Karelas, 2009 WL 3075575, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2009); Brooks v. 

Alameida, 2009 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 98) is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 90) is GRANTED.

3. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, Defendants are ordered 

to provide responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

4. Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of Defendants’ responses, Plaintiff is 

ordered to file any motions to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

5.

Case 1:12-cv-01146-MJS Document 112 Filed 07/07/16 Page 5 of 5