(PC) Fratus v. Uchi ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOHN FRATUS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01523-JLT-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO EXCHANGE DOCUMENTS 11 v. ORDER REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF 12 UCHI, et al., NAMED DEFENDANTS IN PLACE OF DOE DEFENDANTS 13 Defendant(s). 14 15 John Fratus (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On June 6, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file scheduling and 18 discovery statements. (ECF No. 32). The parties have now filed their statements.1 (ECF Nos. 19 34, 38). 20 The Court has reviewed this case and the parties’ statements. In an effort to secure the 21 just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of this action,2 the Court will direct that certain 22 23 1 The Court notes that Defendants’ statement contends that discovery should be limited to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies because they intend to file such a motion. (ECF No. 38, p. 4). However, no 24 exhaustion motion or formal motion to stay has been filed. The Court declines to stay discovery at this time, but Defendants may file a motion to stay alongside any motion for summary judgment on non-exhaustion, which the 25 Court will consider at that time. Unless and until the Court orders such a stay, discovery on all issues is open. 2 See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 508-09 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We begin with the 26 principle that the district court is charged with effectuating the speedy and orderly administration of justice. There is universal acceptance in the federal courts that, in carrying out this mandate, a district court has the authority to 27 enter pretrial case management and discovery orders designed to ensure that the relevant issues to be tried are identified, that the parties have an opportunity to engage in appropriate discovery and that the parties are 28 adequately and timely prepared so that the trial can proceed efficiently and intelligibly.”). 1 documents that are central to the dispute be promptly produced.3 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. Each party has sixty days from the date of service of this order to serve opposing 4 parties, or their counsel, if represented, with copies of the following documents 5 and/or evidence that they have in their possession, custody, or control, to the 6 extent the parties have not already done so:4 7 a. Documents regarding exhaustion of Plaintiff’s claims, including 602s, 8 Form 22s, and responses from the appeals office. (See, e.g., ECF No. 38, 9 p. 3 – generally referencing Plaintiff’s grievance records). 10 b. Witness statements and evidence that were generated from 11 investigation(s) related to the event(s) at issue in the complaint, (see, 12 e.g., ECF No. 38, p. 4 – referencing Incident Report Log. No. COR-04A- 13 18-04-0437) or investigation(s) stemming from the processing of 14 Plaintiff’s grievance(s).5 15 c. All of Plaintiff’s medical records related to the incident(s) and/or 16 condition(s) at issue in the case. (See, e.g., ECF No. 38, p. 3 – 17 referencing medical records from Plaintiff’s prison). 18 d. Video recordings and photographs related to the incident(s) at issue in 19 the complaint, including video recordings and photographs of Plaintiff 20 taken following the incident(s). (See, e.g., ECF No. 38, p. 4 – 21 3 Advisory Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Rule 22 26(a) (“The enumeration in Rule 26(a) of items to be disclosed does not prevent a court from requiring by order or local rule that the parties disclose additional information without a discovery request.”). 23 4 Defense counsel is requested to obtain these documents from Plaintiff’s institution(s) of confinement. If defense counsel is unable to do so, defense counsel should inform Plaintiff that a third party subpoena is required. 24 5 See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 94-95 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion improves the quality of those prisoner suits that are eventually filed because proper exhaustion often results in the creation of an administrative 25 record that is helpful to the court. When a grievance is filed shortly after the event giving rise to the grievance, witnesses can be identified and questioned while memories are still fresh, and evidence can be gathered and 26 preserved.”). The Court notes that Defendant(s) only need to produce documents such as a Confidential Appeal Inquiry 27 or a Use of Force Critique to the extent those documents contain witness statements related to the incident(s) alleged in the complaint and/or evidence related to the incident(s) alleged in the complaint that will not be 28 provided to Plaintiff separately. 1 referencing photos of Plaintiff but noting that Defendants are unaware of 2 any video recordings).6 3 e. Plaintiff’s CDCR SOMS and ERMS records from March 30, 2018 to 4 May 30, 2018. (See ECF No. 38, p. 3). 5 f. And Defendants Uchi’s and Burnes’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 6 sign-up sheet that records on-duty hours for April 30, 2018—the date of 7 the incident giving rise to the allegations in the complaint. (See ECF No. 8 38, p. 3; ECF No. 1, p. 6). 9 2. Additionally, as this case proceeds against a Doe defendant (see ECF No. 18, p. 10 9), Plaintiff may request documents from Defendants Uchi and Burnes in order 11 to identify the Doe defendant. Plaintiff may also request a third-party subpoena 12 if this information is not available from Defendants Uchi and Burnes. Plaintiff 13 may refer to the Court’s Scheduling Order for further information regarding the 14 procedures for requesting documents from Defendants Uchi and Burnes and for 15 requesting a third-party subpoena. If Plaintiff is able to identify the Doe 16 defendant, he should file a motion to substitute the named individual in place of 17 the Doe defendant no later than 120 days from the date of service of this order. 18 If Plaintiff fails to identify the Doe defendant, this defendant may be dismissed 19 from the case. 20 3. If any party obtains documents and/or other evidence described above later in 21 the case from a third party, that party shall provide all other parties with copies 22 of the documents and/or evidence within thirty days. 23 4. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that they have already 24 produced. 25 5. Parties do not need to produce documents or evidence that were provided to 26 them by the opposing party. 27 6 If Plaintiff is not allowed possess, or is unable to play, video recording(s), defense counsel shall work 28 with staff at Plaintiff’s institution of confinement to ensure that Plaintiff is able to view the video recording(s). 1 6. Parties may object to producing any of the above-listed documents and/or 2 evidence. Objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all other parties 3 within sixty days from the date of service of this order (or within thirty days of 4 receiving additional documents and/or evidence). The objection should include 5 the basis for not providing the documents and/or evidence. If Defendant(s) 6 object based on the official information privilege, Defendant(s) shall follow the 7 procedures described in the Court’s scheduling order. Ifa party files an 8 objection, all other parties have fourteen days from the date the objection is filed 9 to file a response. If any party files a response to an objection, the Court will 10 issue a ruling on the objection. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 7, 2022 [sf ey — 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28