(PC) Shockner v. Soltanian ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANFRED SHOCKNER, No. 2: 18-cv-1948 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR. SOLTANIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant Soltanian-Zadeh’s motion to compel 19 (ECF No. 118), plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery, contained in plaintiff’s objections (ECF 20 No. 130), and plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 134). 21 For the reasons stated herein, defendant Soltanian-Zadeh’s motion to compel is vacated, 22 and plaintiff’s motions to reopen discovery and to compel are denied. 23 Background 24 On November 9, 2020, plaintiff filed a request for issuance of subpoenas addressed to 25 defendants for the production of various documents. (ECF No. 78.) On July 28, 2021, the 26 undersigned denied the request for subpoenas. (ECF No. 98.) The undersigned informed plaintiff 27 that he may not obtain discovery from defendants through a subpoena. (Id. at 19-20.) 28 //// 1 On September 30, 2021, the undersigned issued the Discovery and Scheduling Order 2 setting the discovery deadline for January 28, 2022. (ECF No. 105.) 3 Despite the July 18, 2021 order informing plaintiff that he could not obtain discovery from 4 defendants through a subpoena, on December 17, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion requesting 5 issuance of subpoenas addressed to defendants. (ECF No. 116.) On March 18, 2022, the 6 undersigned denied this motion. (ECF No. 126.) 7 On December 27, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion requesting issuance of subpoenas 8 addressed to the Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”) Litigation Coordinator. (ECF No. 117.) On 9 March 18, 2022, the undersigned denied this motion on the grounds that the proposed subpoenas 10 sought documents not relevant to this action and plaintiff made no showing why he could not 11 obtain these documents from defendant Soltanian-Zadeh. (ECF No. 126.) 12 On January 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion requesting issuance of subpoenas to the 13 Valley State Prison Litigation Coordinator. (ECF No. 119.) On March 18, 2022, the undersigned 14 denied this motion on the grounds that the proposed subpoenas sought documents not relevant to 15 this action. (ECF No. 126.) 16 On March 18, 2022, the undersigned recommended that defendants’ motions for judgment 17 on the pleadings be granted. (ECF No. 125.) 18 On June 16, 2020, The Honorable Troy L. Nunley adopted the March 18, 2020 findings 19 and recommendations. (ECF No. 139.) This action now proceeds on the following claims: 1) 20 defendant Vaughn allegedly violated the Eighth Amendment by replacing plaintiff’s methadone 21 with Tylenol and failing to renew plaintiff’s chrono for his orthopedic mattress; and 2) defendant 22 Smith allegedly violated the Eighth Amendment by approving defendant Vaughn’s decisions. 23 (ECF Nos. 125, 139.) 24 The dispositive motion deadline is sixty days from June 16, 2020. (ECF No. 128.) 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Defendant Soltanian-Zadeh’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 118) 2 Defendant Soltanian-Zadeh moves to compel further responses to requests for admissions 3 and special interrogatories. 4 The claims against defendant Soltanian-Zadeh are dismissed. (ECF Nos. 125, 139.) 5 Accordingly, defendant Soltanian-Zadeh’s motion to compel is vacated. 6 Plaintiff’s Request to Reopen Discovery (ECF No. 130) 7 Legal Standard 8 In considering whether to grant a motion to amend the scheduling order and re-open 9 discovery, the court is to consider: 10 1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the 11 moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need 12 for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to 13 relevant evidence. 14 City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting United 15 States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), vacated on 16 other grounds, 520 U.S. 939 (1997)). It is “significant” when a party is seeking to re-open 17 discovery rather than extend the discovery deadline. W. Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 18 897 F.2d 1519, 1524 (9th Cir. 1990). “The difference [between the two types of requests] is 19 considerable” because “a request for an extension acknowledges the importance of a deadline, 20 [while] a retroactive request suggests that the party paid no attention at all to the deadline.” Id. 21 Discussion 22 On April 7, 2020, plaintiff filed the pending motion to reopen discovery (contained in 23 objections to the March 18, 2022 order). (ECF No. 130.) In this motion, plaintiff states that he 24 accepts the court’s ruling that the information requested by subpoena should have been requested 25 directly from defendants. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that the court’s delay in addressing his 26 request for subpoenas left him without a remedy. (Id.) For that reason, plaintiff requests that the 27 court allow him to serve defendants with discovery requests. (Id.) 28 //// 1 As discussed above, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s requests for subpoenas filed 2 December 17, 2021, December 27, 2021, and January 28, 2021 on March 18, 2022, i.e., after the 3 discovery deadline passed. However, the March 18, 2022 order found that only one of plaintiff’s 4 proposed subpoenas sought documents that should have been requested from a defendant, i.e., 5 defendant Soltanian-Zadeh. The claims against defendant Soltanian-Zadeh have been dismissed. 6 In the March 18, 2022 order, the undersigned found that the other subpoenas addressed to non- 7 parties sought documents that were not relevant to this action. For these reasons, the 8 undersigned’s alleged delay in addressing plaintiff’s request for subpoenas did not impact 9 plaintiff’s ability to serve defendants with timely discovery. 10 Moreover, on July 28, 2021, the undersigned informed plaintiff that he could not obtain 11 discovery from defendants through subpoenas. The Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed 12 September 30, 2021, cited the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery. 13 (ECF No. 105 at 5.) Despite these advisements, plaintiff requested additional subpoenas for 14 defendants and apparently failed to serve defendants with proper discovery requests. 15 Although the trial is not imminent and the undersigned did not ask defendants to respond 16 to the pending motion, the undersigned denies plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery on the 17 grounds that plaintiff did not act diligently. As discussed above, plaintiff failed to serve 18 defendants with timely and proper discovery requests despite clear advisement from the court 19 regarding discovery procedures. As discussed above, the undersigned’s alleged delay in 20 addressing plaintiff’s requests for subpoenas did not impact plaintiff’s ability to serve defendants 21 with timely discovery requests. For these reasons, plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery is 22 denied. 23 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 134) 24 Plaintiff filed the motion to compel on April 13, 2022. (ECF No. 134.) Plaintiff contends 25 that on March 25, 2022, the undersigned approved defendants’ request to modify the scheduling 26 order and extended the discovery deadline by sixty days. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff requests that 27 defendants be ordered to provide him with various documents. (Id. at 1-4.) 28 //// 1 On April 21, 2022, defendants Vaughn and Smith filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion 2 || to compel. (ECF No. 135.) Defendants correctly observe that on March 25, 2022, the 3 || undersigned granted their request to modify the scheduling order and reset the dispositive motion 4 || deadline for sixty days after the court ruled on the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. 5 || (See ECF No. 128.) The undersigned did not extend the discovery deadline. In the opposition, 6 || defendants also contend that plaintiff failed to serve them with the proposed discovery requests 7 || contained in the motion to compel. 8 In his reply to defendants’ opposition, plaintiff claims that he served defendants with the 9 || discovery requests addressed in the motion to compel. (ECF No. 137.) Plaintiff appears to claim 10 || that he served these requests on attorney Jill Nathan. (Id. at 1-2.) Attorney Jill Nathan 11 || represented defendant Soltanian-Zadeh who 1s dismissed from this action. 12 Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied as untimely because it was filed after the January 13 || 28, 2022 discovery deadline. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Defendant Soltanian-Zadeh’s motion to compel (ECF No. 118) is vacated; 16 2. Plaintiff's request to reopen discovery, contained in his objections (ECF No. 130), is 17 denied; 18 3. Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 134) is denied. 19 | Dated: June 22, 2022 20 Aectl Aharon 21 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 Shock 1948.com(2) 25 26 27 28