Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00126/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00126-21/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY CURTIS BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB

ORDER RE MOTIONS

ECF NO. 82, 86

Currently before the Court are two motions to extend the deadlines set in the Court’s 

scheduling order. On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff Harvey Curtis Baker (“Plaintiff”) filed a Request 

to Postpone Discovery Cut-Off, Dispositive Motion and Trial Dates Due to Non-Compliance 

with Prior Order By Respondent. (ECF No. 82.) Defendant S. Moore (“Defendant”) filed an 

opposition to this request on June 17, 2015. (ECF No. 84.) Plaintiff filed a reply on July 9, 

2015. (ECF No. 85.)

On July 29, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for an extension of the dispositive motion 

deadline. (ECF No. 86.)

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 87 Filed 07/31/15 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

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Request to Extend the Discovery Deadline

The Court’s April 28, 2014 scheduling order set the deadline for discovery as December 

28, 2014 and the deadline for filing dispositive motions as March 9, 2015. (ECF No. 74.) 

Plaintiff requested an extension of the discovery deadline on December 24, 2014. (ECF No. 76.) 

On March 4, 2015, the Court granted this motion and extended the deadline for conducting 

discovery by 90 days. (ECF No. 81.)

On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion to extend the discovery deadline. (ECF 

No. 82.) Plaintiff argues that additional time is necessary to conduct discovery because 

Defendant has failed to respond to the portion of the Court’s March 4, 2015 order requiring them 

to review Plaintiff’s request for documents and inform Plaintiff in writing whether any 

responsive documents are in CDCR’s possession, custody, or control that were withheld from 

Plaintiff.1

Defendant admits that they failed to comply with the Court’s March 4, 2015 order. 

Defendant argues that their failure to comply did not prejudice Plaintiff’s ability to conduct 

discovery, and therefore the discovery deadline should not be extended. Defendant further 

argues that they provided a response to Plaintiff on June 1, 2015 informing Plaintiff that no 

documents were withheld in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production on the grounds that 

they were not within the possession, custody, or control of Defendant.

The Court notes that Defendant’s untimely response did prejudice Plaintiff. The Court 

denied Plaintiff’s first request for a subpoena against CDCR because it was unclear whether 

Plaintiff could have requested the same documents directly from Defendant. Accordingly, the 

 

1

Plaintiff had served a request for production of documents on Defendant S. Moore and requested the Court issue a 

subpoena requesting documents from CDCR. The Court recognized that in lawsuits involving correctional officers 

working for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), a common discovery tactic is 

to vaguely claim that individual correctional officers lack possession, custody, or control over certain documents in 

CDCR’s possession, which gives the impression to inexperienced plaintiffs that these documents do not exist, when 

instead CDCR’s position is that the plaintiff sought the documents from the wrong entity. To avoid unnecessary 

costs associated with playing these discovery games, the Court ordered Defendant to inform Plaintiff whether any 

documents were withheld on this ground.

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 87 Filed 07/31/15 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

purpose of Defendant’s response was to determine whether Plaintiff should renew his request for 

a subpoena against CDCR.

The Court also admonishes Defendant for failing to comply with the Court’s order 

requiring them to respond to Plaintiff within twenty-one (21) days of the Court’s March 3, 2015 

order. The Court fashions the following sanctions against Defendant for their failure to comply 

which serves the dual purpose of resolving the outstanding discovery dispute.

Since Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to request a timely subpoena requesting 

documents from CDCR, the Court will order Defendant’s counsel to coordinate with CDCR and 

respond to Plaintiff’s requests for documents as if a timely subpoena had been issued and served. 

Accordingly, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to serve his requests for documents on 

Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall coordinate with CDCR to provide a response to 

Plaintiff’s request as if the request had been made via a formal subpoena. To the extent that any 

documents are withheld by Defendant/CDCR on the basis of privilege, Defendant’s counsel shall 

provide Plaintiff with a detailed privilege log individually identifying each document withheld

and describing the grounds for the applicable privilege. The Court will grant Plaintiff the 

opportunity to file a motion challenging any asserted privilege. The Court will not extend the 

discovery deadline to permit Plaintiff to conduct any other discovery, since Defendant’s 

untimely response did not affect Plaintiff’s ability to conduct any other discovery.

B. Defendant’s Motion to Extend 

Defendant requests a thirty-one (31) day extension of the deadline to file dispositive 

motions. The Court will extend the dispositive motion deadline for both Plaintiff and Defendant 

since there are outstanding discovery issues related to the documents Plaintiff sought from 

Defendant and CDCR.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 87 Filed 07/31/15 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

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline is PARTIALLY GRANTED:

a. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall serve 

a Request for Documents identifying any documents requested from

CDCR;

b. Counsel for Defendant shall coordinate with CDCR to provide respond to 

Plaintiff’s requests as if they had been served with a formal subpoena. 

Defendant’s response shall be provided within twenty-one (21) days after 

the requests are served;

c. Any motion to compel from Plaintiff challenging Defendant/CDCR’s 

responses shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days after Defendant’s 

response is served;

2. Defendant’s motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff and Defendant shall file any dispositive motions on or before August 31, 

2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00126-SAB Document 87 Filed 07/31/15 Page 4 of 4