(PC) Jones v. Pfeiffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DYRELL WAYNE JONES, Case No. 1:19-cv-396-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING 13 v. IDENTITIES OF PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES 14 J. WALINGA, M. PITCHFORD, (Doc. No. 50) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Dyrell Wayne Jones is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in his civil 18 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion 19 to compel Plaintiff to provide the identities of his witnesses to the incident to Defendants (Doc. 20 No. 50-1) and attached Declaration of Joanne Chen (Doc. No. 50-2), filed October 23, 2020. 21 Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 In summary, Defendants state that they have asked Plaintiff both during his deposition and 24 in interrogatory questions provided on August 26, 2020 to identify all witnesses who could 25 provide testimony supporting Plaintiff’s contentions in this case. Specifically, Defendants 26 requested: 27 Walinga Interrogatory 5- Identify all witnesses, by name and CDCR numbers, who support Plaintiff’s contention that Walinga made 28 1 sexually inappropriate remarks against him during chapel search on or about May 27, 2018. 2 Pitchford and Walinga Interrogatory 6- Identify all witnesses, by 3 name and CDCR number, who supported Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants each discriminated against him based on his race during 4 the chapel search on or about May 27, 2018. 5 Pitchford Interrogatory 6 and Walinga Interrogatory No. 7 requested that Plaintiff identify all witnesses, by name and CDCR number, who 6 supported his contention that Defendants each discriminated against him based on his religious during chapel search on or about May 27, 7 2018. 8 (Doc. No. 50-1 at 1-2). Defendants note that Plaintiff filed responses and objections to the 9 Interrogatories, failing to answer these questions. (Id. at 2) (citing Doc. No. 50-2 at 8). During 10 Plaintiff’s deposition, he acknowledged knowing the identities of his witnesses, but explained he 11 was unwilling to provide the names because he wanted to speak with those witnesses first. (Id. at 12 2). 13 II. APPLICIABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 14 A. Rule 26- Scope of discovery generally 15 “[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties 16 may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 17 defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at 18 stake in the action, the amount of controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 19 information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 20 whether the burden and expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the benefit. Information 21 within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). District courts have “broad discretion to manage discovery.” 23 Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). 24 B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, Local Rule 251 - Motions to Compel 25 A party propounding discovery may seek an order compelling disclosure when an 26 opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated 28 as failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “It is well established that a 1 | failure to object to discovery requests within the time period constitutes a waiver of any 2 | objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 949 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) 3 | (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981)). The moving party bears the 4 | burden of demonstrating “actual and substantial prejudice from the denial of discovery.” See 5 | Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 6 Here, Plaintiff did file an opposition to the Defendants’ motion to compel, which may be 7 | “construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion.” Local Rule 230 (c). Nonetheless, 8 | the Court finds that the witnesses’ identities are not subject to any privilege and witnesses to the 9 | incident who may have knowledge of the incident is clearly relevant. The Court will grant 10 | Defendants’ motion to compel. The Court warns Plaintiff that if he fails to provide this highly 11 | relevant information to Defendants, he may be precluded from using testimony or statements 12 | provided by these witnesses in opposition to a dispositive motion or at trial. 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 14 1. Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to provide the identities of his witnesses to the 15 incident to Defendants (Doc. No. 50) is GRANTED. 16 2. Within fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Order, Plaintiff shall provide to 17 Defendants a response that: identifies all witnesses, by name and CDCR number, who support 18 Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants each discriminated against him, based on his race, or 19 otherwise, and/or made sexually inappropriate comments, during the chapel search on or about 20 May 27, 2018. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: _ June 16, 2021 Mihaw. fares Back 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28