(PC) Harper v. Path ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN SETH HARPER, Case No. 1:21-cv-558-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LIMITED SCOPE EXPEDITED 13 v. DISCOVERY AND EX PARTE MOTION FOR COPIES 14 WELL PATH, LLC., ET. AL., (Doc. Nos. 14, 21) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion for limited scope expedited discovery in 18 support of motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction.” (Doc. No. 14). 19 Plaintiff also seeks copies of his First Amended Complaint and his motion for a temporary 20 restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 21). 21 Background 22 Plaintiff, who is a pretrial detainee, initiated this action pro se by filing a prisoner civil 23 right compliant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 1, 2021. (See generally Doc. Nos. 1). Plaintiff 24 proceeds on his First Amended Complaint filed on March 14, 2022, which identifies 25 approximately 18 Defendants, including but not limited to: the corporation that employs the 26 medical staff at the county jail identified as Well Path, LLC; a medical doctor; correctional 27 officers at the Kings County Jail; and county officials. (Doc. No. 18, “FAC”). The FAC 28 generally complains about the provision of Plaintiff’s medical care at the Kings County Jail. (See 1 generally Id.). 2 A. Motion for Expedited Discovery 3 In Plaintiff’s “motion for limited scope discovery in support of motion for temporary 4 restraining order/preliminary injunction,” Plaintiff wants to obtain records from the company 5 Global Tel*Link, who he states provided and serviced tablets to Kings County Jail prior to and 6 during the time Defendant Well Path, LLC. provided medical care to inmates. (Doc. No. 14 at 1- 7 5). Plaintiff states that he filed medical-related inmate grievances via Global Tel*Link’s tablets 8 and has no way to obtain copies of the grievances absent a subpoena to this third-party. (Id. at 3). 9 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), a party “may not seek discovery from any 10 source” prior to the conference required by Rule 26(f). The parties’ conference must take place at 11 least 21 days before the Initial Case Management Conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d),(f). For 12 discovery to occur earlier, a “good cause” standard applies. See generally Semitool Inc. v. Tokyo 13 Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. April 19, 2002); see also Hall v. Mims, 2012 14 WL 1498893, *2 (E.D. Cal. April 27, 2012); Fernandez v. Metropolitan Corr. Center, 2021 WL 15 1400854 (S.D. Cal. April 13, 2021). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited 16 discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the 17 responding party.” Hall, 2012 WL 1498893, *2 (citing Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276). The 18 discovery sought must be relevant and good cause must exist to provide the discovery on an 19 expedited basis. Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. 20 Expedited discovery may be appropriate in some cases seeking injunctive relief, e.g. 21 copyright or patent infringement claims or with motions challenging personal jurisdiction. (Id.) 22 (citations omitted). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. 23 Fernandez, 2021 WL 1400854, *2. In pro se cases, the Ninth Circuit often permits early 24 discovery so plaintiffs can ascertain the identity of John Doe defendants. Id. (citing Wakefield v. 25 Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999)(other citations omitted)). 26 Here, the Court finds expedited discovery is not warranted. Plaintiff states that he wishes 27 to engage in early discovery to obtain copies of his medical-related grievances, but he attaches 28 summaries of the grievances to his motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary 1 injunction. (See e.g. Doc. No. 13 at 35-52). Admittedly, the FAC challenges the provision of 2 medical care to Plaintiff at the county facility, but Plaintiff has not shown why he needs copies of 3 his inmate grievances on an expedited basis. See also Hall, 2012 WL 1498893 *3-*4 (denying 4 plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery where inmate health and safety involved).1 5 B. Motion for Copies 6 Next, Plaintiff seeks copies of both his FAC and his motion for a temporary restraining 7 order or preliminary junction. (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff does not specify which motion for a 8 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction he requires copied. Plaintiff filed a motion 9 for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in December 2021 and another one in 10 March 2022. Plaintiff states his ability to make copies was delayed by one week. (Id. at 2). He 11 requests these copies for “purposes of general reference in litigation.” (Id.). 12 Neither Plaintiff’s pro se status nor his prisoner status entitle him to receive 13 complimentary copies. Blair v. CDCR, 2018 WL 1959532, at *6 n. 2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018). 14 Having reviewed the docket, the Court notes it previously provided Plaintiff a “one-time courtesy 15 copy” of a motion that was stricken by the Court. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff is not currently under 16 any Court-ordered deadline at this time. Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for 17 copies of these documents. 18 Consistent with statute, the Clerk will provide copies of documents and the docket sheet at 19 $0.50 per page. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Checks in the exact amount are payable to “Clerk, 20 USDC.” Plaintiff’s FAC is 26 pages in length and his motions for a temporary restraining order 21 and preliminary injunction are 52 and 14 pages in length, respectively. Thus, to the extent 22 Plaintiff wishes to obtain copies of the requested documents he should forward a check in the 23 amount of $46.00 to the Clerk if he wishes to obtain copies of these pleadings. 24 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 25 1. Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED. 26 2. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for copies of his First Amended Complaint and his motions 27 1 By separate order the undersigned addresses Plaintiff’s pending motions for temporary restraining order 28 or preliminary injunction. 1 | foratemporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED. 2 >| Dated: _ April 13,2022 law □□□ fareh fackt 4 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28