Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00375/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00375-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

LORENZO FOSSELMAN JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RANDOLPH GIBBS, M.D.; ALLISON

BRAGER; C. KATES, LVN; CHARLES

DUDLEY LEE, M.D., Health Care Manager; and

C. MATHEWS, MTA,

Defendants. /

No. CV 06-0375 PJH

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

BY DEFENDANTS

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff filed a motion for

sanctions (Document 86), asserting that Defendants failed to comply with discovery orders, which

was denied on October 1, 2009 (Document 93). Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration

(Document 96) which was granted on March 2, 2010 (Document 102). The denial of the motion for

sanctions was vacated and determination on the motion for sanctions was referred to Magistrate

Judge Nandor Vadas.

Previously the district court had granted two motions to compel discovery by Plaintiff. The

first motion was granted on March 18, 2008 (Document 52). In that order, the district court detailed

the defects in Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories. The court ordered Defendants to

provide proper responses to: Allison Brager interrogatory one, the first sentence of Allison Brager

interrogatory two, and subpart b of that interrogatory; C. Kates interrogatories one, four, five, six,

and the first sentence and subsection b of C. Kates interrogatory two; and Dudley Lee interrogatories

one, two, four and six. The court ordered responses to these interrogatories and to Plaintiff's request

for production of documents within 30 days by April 17, 2008.

Case 4:06-cv-00375-PJH Document 106 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff's second motion to compel was granted on September 25, 2008 (Document 68). The

district court noted that in their opposition Defendants admit some of their answers were intended

for a different case with a different plaintiff. Defendants improperly attempted to correct their

interrogatory responses in their opposition. Defendants also did not address their failure to respond

to Plaintiff's request for production of documents. The court ordered Defendants to respond to

Plaintiff's request for production of documents and to provide amended and supplemented answers

to all interrogatories.

On July 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed the current motion for sanctions citing Defendants' failure to

comply with these court orders. Plaintiff claimed he had not received any response from Defendants

regarding discovery, despite the passing of the Court's deadline (Document 72). After being ordered

by the Court to respond (Document 88), Defendants filed their reply on August 10, 2009 (Document

89) claiming the only outstanding discovery they were aware of was Plaintiff's Second Request for

Admissions, which was served on July 29, 2009. Because Plaintiff did not respond, the court

initially denied Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Document 93). In his motion to reconsider, Plaintiff

claims his case files were lost or misplaced by prison officials. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants

misrepresented facts citing their failure to provide any document or affidavit declaring their

compliance with previous court orders. Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the

motion for reconsideration (Document 101). The court granted the motion to reconsider and vacated

the order denying the motion for sanctions (Document 102).

It is unclear from the record to what extent Defendants have complied with the court's

previous orders. Defendants' response to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions does not provide any

evidence that they have amended and supplemented answers to all interrogatories, as required by the

September 25, 2008 order compelling responses. Also, Defendants' statement of non-opposition to

the motion to reconsider does not address Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants have misrepresented

facts regarding their compliance with court orders.

Defendants are ORDERED to submit additional briefing detailing their compliance with the

court's discovery orders. Defendants must demonstrate, through proof of service or other

documentation, that they amended and supplemented their interrogatory responses and responded to

Case 4:06-cv-00375-PJH Document 106 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

requests to produce documents, as ordered. Defendants shall respond within 14 days by April 1,

2010, or the Court will interpret Defendants' failure to respond as a concession that Defendants

failed to comply with discovery orders and are subject to sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2010

 

 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00375-PJH Document 106 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 3