Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-20/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

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00456-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH,

SEVENTH, EIGHTH, AND NINTH MOTIONS

TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF

DEFENDANTS REYNOSO AND MUNOZ’

OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR

ADMISSIONS (ECF Nos. 97, 99, 163, 164, 165)

ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY CUT-OFF

DEADLINE NUNC PRO TUNC TO

NOVEMBER 15, 2011 (ECF No. 130)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE AND MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY

CUT-OFF DATE (ECF Nos. 154, 166)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE DISPOSITIVE

MOTION DEADLINE (ECF No. 170)

Dispositive Motion Deadline: May 1, 2012

I. Background

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Discovery in this action opened on

September 22, 2010. (ECF No. 42.) On July 22, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation to continue

discovery in this action until November 15, 2011. (ECF No. 130.) On July 27, 2011, an orderissued

denying Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, granting in part Plaintiff’s first motion to compel, denying

Plaintiff’s second, third and fourth motions to compel, denying Plaintiff’s fifth motion to compel and

1

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 181 Filed 01/13/12 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

granting Plaintiff’s motion for costs, denying Plaintiff’s motion for judicial finding that requests for

admissions propounded to Defendants Munoz and Clausings be deemed admitted, denyingPlaintiff’s

motion for determination on sufficiencyof Defendant Hacker’s objections to requests for admissions

and granting Plaintiff’s request for costs, and denying Defendants Clausings, Daley, Hacker,

Huchins, Munoz, Omos, Paz, Perez, Reynoso, and Roberson’s motion for a protective order. (ECF

No. 131.)

On September 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint and

a first amended complaint was lodged. (ECF No. 142.) On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

motion to enforce a court order to pay costs in connection with motions to compel. (ECF No. 145.) 

The Court granted Plaintiff‘s motion to file a first amended complaint and the first amended

complaint was filed on October 19, 2011. (ECF Nos. 148, 149.) On October 25, 2011, an order

issued requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the court of willingness to

proceed on the claims found cognizable in the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 152.) Plaintiff

filed a notice of motion to preserve evidence and a motion for Rule 37(b) sanctions on November 1

7, 2011. (ECF No. 154, 155.) On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for a stay of the

ruling of his Rule 37(b) sanctions. (ECF No. 156.) On November 21, 2011, Defendants filed an

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions which included over five hundred pages of documents

that have been provided to Plaintiff during the discovery process. (ECF Nos. 160, 161.)

Plaintiff filed a seventh and eighth motion to compel and a second amended complaint on

November 22, 2011. (ECF Nos. 163, 164.) On November 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a ninth motion

to compel, a motion for an extension of time for the discovery cut-off date, and declaration in

support of his motion. (ECF Nos. 165, 166, 167.) On December 5 and 7, 2011, Defendants filed

oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. (ECF Nos. 168, 169.) On December 8, 2011,

Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time for the dispositive motion deadline and a motion for

an extension of time to file a reply to defendants’ opposition to his motion for sanctions. (ECF No.

170, 171.) On December 15, 2011, findings and recommendations issued recommending dismissing

Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions shall be addressed at a later date by separate order.

1

2

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 181 Filed 01/13/12 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

certain claims and defendants. (ECF No. 173.) On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed replies to

Defendants opposition to his motion for sanctions. (ECF Nos. 175, 176.) On January 9, 2012, an

orderissued requiring Defendants to show cause whysanctions should not be imposed for the failure

to comply with the court’s order, issued July 27, 2011, requiring Plaintiff be paid costs for the filing

of motions to compel, and Plaintiff filed an opposition to the findings and recommendations. (ECF

Nos. 177, 179.) An order adopting the findings and recommendations and dismissing certain claims

and defendants issued on January 11, 2012, and the action was referred back to the undersigned. 

(ECF No. 180.)

II. Motions to Compel

Based upon the order adopting the findings and recommendations the scope of this litigation

has been limited to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Munoz, Clausing, and Omos for excessive

use of pepper spray; Defendants Hutchins, Reynoso, Hacker, and Roberson for ordering Plaintiff’s

property removed and that he be returned to his contaminated cell without a means to decontaminate;

and Defendants Morse and Paz for placing Plaintiff in the contaminated cell. Since the scope of the

litigation has been narrowed, the parties are directed to each file a single statement of discovery

needed delineating the remaining discovery sought based upon the claims that remain in this action. 

This order is not reopening discovery, but directing the parties to each provide a separate statement

delineating what responses to previously propounded discovery is necessary for adequate trial

preparation and/or dispositive motions. The statements filed by the parties should be respectively

titled “Plaintiff’s Statement of Discovery Needed” and Defendants’ Statement of Discovery

Needed”. The statements of discoveryneeded should complywith general motion practice and rules

found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. All outstanding discovery

motions shall be denied as moot based upon the issuance of this order. 

III. Motion to Preserve Evidence

Plaintiff requests an order directing Defendants to preserve evidence relevant in this action

based upon the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations policy of onlymaintaining

records for five years. “Litigants owe an uncompromising duty to preserve what they know or

reasonably should know will be relevant evidence in a pending lawsuit, or one in the offing . . . .” 

3

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 181 Filed 01/13/12 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

JUDGE WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER ET AL., FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 11:125

(2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Leon v. Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959

(9th Cir. 2006). This obligation, backed by the court’s powerto impose sanctions for the destruction

of such evidence, Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991), is sufficient in most cases

to secure the preservation of relevant evidence. 

Before the court orders additional measures to preserve evidence, there must be some

showing that there is a reason to be concerned that potentially relevant evidence will not be

preserved and that the opposing party may be harmed as a result. Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., No. 08-

cv-1462-IEG-RBB, 2008 WL 4104473, *1 (S.D.Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). Given the duty to preserve

evidence and the absence of any showing by Plaintiff that there is reason for the Court to be

concerned about the destruction of any evidence, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied. Since

Defendants have provided over five hundred pages of documents during the discovery process, the

Court declines to presume that Defendants will destroy evidence and Plaintiff has provided no

evidence that the any evidence is in danger of being destroyed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

an order to preserve evidence is denied. 

IV. Motion for Extension of the Discovery Cut-Off Date and Dispositive Motion Deadline

Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery cut-off date in order to allow him to file a

motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied as moot based upon the issuance of this order

directing the parties to set forth discovery that is at issue. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file dispositive motions

based upon the discovery issues that are still at dispute in this matter. 

V. Order

Accordingly it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The stipulation of the parties to extend the discovery cut-off date to November 15,

2011, is GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC;

2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order the parties are directed to file

a statement of discovery needed as described in this order; 

3. Plaintiff’s sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth motion to compel, and motion to

4

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 181 Filed 01/13/12 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

determine the sufficiency of Defendants Reynoso and Munoz’ objections to requests

for admissions are DENIED as moot;

4. Plaintiff’s motion for the preservation of evidence, filed November 7, 2011, is

DENIED;

5. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery cut-off date, filed November 28,

2011, is DENIED as moot; 

6. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline is GRANTED,

and dispositive motions shall be filed on or before May 1, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 12, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 181 Filed 01/13/12 Page 5 of 5