Collins v. Aranas ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 RONALD COLLINS, ) 3:17-cv-00417-MMD-WGC 9 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER 10 ) vs. ) Re: ECF Nos. 73, 84, 85, 87, 91 11 ) ARANAS, et al., ) 12 ) Defendants. ) 13 ______________________________________) 14 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendants Not Producing Court Ordered Documents 15 and Request for Sanctions and Rehearing on ECF No. 65. (ECF No. 84.) Defendants filed a response. 16 (ECF No. 91.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 95.) Defendants also filed a response (ECF No. 96) to 17 Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 87) that is relevant to the present motion for sanctions. In this 18 motion, Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants for their alleged failure to follow the court’s orders 19 set forth at ECF Nos. 73 and 85. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On June 12, 2019, this court issued a series of rulings in ECF No. 73 pertaining to Plaintiff’s 22 motion to compel. Insofar as this order is concerned, these rulings included the following: (1) Defendant 23 Naughton was to file a supplemental interrogatory response to provide the names of the members of the 24 Utilization Review Committee (URC) who approved or denied Dr. Naughton’s recommendations for 25 further medical care; (2) Defendant Dr. Aranas or someone else in the NDOC medical hierarchy should 26 produce the names of members of the URC from 2015 to present; and (3) Defendants were to produce 27 copies of Plaintiff’s medical-dental kites which he could keep in his cell as they are not medical records. 28 1 The minutes of the proceedings also indicate the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) stated that 2 photographs of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) transport van had already been given 3 to the Plaintiff. In a subsequent order issued by District Judge Du, Defendants were to provide Plaintiff 4 access to his medical reports/files in a manner compliant with pertinent administrative regulations no 5 later than July 5, 2019. (ECF No. 85.) 6 Plaintiff argues Defendants failed to comply with these orders by not providing the requested 7 documents and not providing his medical kites to him directly. Plaintiff also argues he has not been 8 given the access to his medical reports/files as ordered by Judge Du. 9 In their response, Defendants state that Defendant Naughton and Aranas provided “analysis and 10 objections” with respect to the names of the URC members. Defendants also assert that all of Plaintiff’s 11 medical kites have been provided to him, and a photograph of the NDOC transport van has been 12 provided, although the photo did not portray a step because the NDOC does not use a step. 13 In their response to a separate motion, Defendants address Plaintiff’s allegation of their claimed 14 non-compliance with Judge Du’s order regarding Plaintiff’s access to his medical records. (ECF No. 96.) 15 Defendants contend that Plaintiff is permitted to view his medical records and request copies in 16 accordance with applicable prison regulations. 17 II. THE COURT’S POWER TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS 18 The Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada state that a court may, after “notice and 19 an opportunity to be heard”, impose appropriate sanctions on an attorney or party who “[f]ails to comply 20 with any order of this court.” LR IA 11-8. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) also allows for the imposition of sanctions when 22 there is a failure to comply with a court order. 23 The Supreme Court has held a federal court also has the inherent power to impose sanctions. See 24 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991). The inherent power is “not conferred by rule or statute,” 25 but exists for courts to “manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition 26 of cases.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S.Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017) (quotation marks and 27 citation omitted). To impose sanctions under the inherent power, a court is required to make an explicit 28 finding of bad faith or willful misconduct. See In re Dyer, 322 F.3d 1178, 1196 (9th Cir. 2003); Fink v. 1 || Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2001). This inherent power, however, is to be exercised wi 2 || restraint and discretion. Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 There are several components to Plaintiffs motion for sanctions: (1) the order requirit 5 || Defendants Naughton and Aranas to provide the names of the URC members; (2) the order requirit 6 || Defendants to provide Plaintiff his medical-dental kites; (3) the photograph of the transport van; and ( 7 || Judge Du’s order that Plaintiff be able to access his medical records. The court will address ea 8 || component in turn. 9 First, the court ordered both defendant Naughton and defendant Aranas, or someone else in tl 10} NDOC medical hierarchy, to submit supplemental interrogatory responses providing the names □ 11} members of the URC. The court interprets Plaintiff's motion as asserting that he has not yet □□□ 12 | provided these names. Defendants’ response simply states Defendants Naughton and Aranas ha: 13 “provided analysis and Objection to providing names of the Utilization Review Committee.” (ECF N 14 91.) “Analysis and objection” are not in compliance with the court’s order for the Defendants to provic 15 || the names of the URC. As such, the Defendants have TEN (10) DAYS from the date of this order 16 || provide the names of the requested URC members in compliance with the court’s previous order | 17 || sanctions will be considered under Rule 37. 18 The second component the court will address is Plaintiff’ s medical-dental kites. Defendants we 19 || ordered to produce copies of Plaintiff's medical-dental kites for Plaintiff to keep in his cell. In the 20 || response, Defendants represented to the court that they provided these kites to the Plaintiff. Howev« 21 || the letter provided to the Plaintiff by Defendants is ambiguous as to how the kites were provide 22 || (ECF No. 84 at 5.) The court’s interpretation of the letter is that Plaintiff is required to submit a writt 23 || kite to the Warden’s Office to review the kites. Ifso, this is also not in compliance with what the cov 24 || ordered, and the Defendants have TEN (10) DAYS from the date of this order to provide Plaintiff h 25 || medical-dental kites in a manner compliant with the court’s previous order or face sanctions und 26 || Rule 37. 27 The third component the court will address is the photograph of the NDOC transport van. Durit 28 || the initial hearing on June 12, 2019, DAG Hough represented to the court that photographs of the NDO 1 || transport van had been provided to the Plaintiff. As a result, the court denied Plaintiff's request 2 || compel production of the photo as moot. Plaintiff appears to argue the photograph of the van w 3 || requested to portray a step. Defendants maintain the position that photographs of the van have be« provided to the Plaintiff without the step because the NDOC does not use a step. Accordingly, the cou 5 || finds no basis for sanctions pertaining to the production of the photograph of the van. 6 Lastly, the court will examine Plaintiff's access to his medical records as ordered by Judge L on July 3, 2019. Plaintiffs briefing indicates Defendants have not given him access to his medic 8 || records and are non-compliant with the order. Defendants represent to the court that the NDOC hi 9 || given Plaintiff access to his medical records in a manner compliant with administrative regulations, a1 10 the specific access Plaintiff is requesting through the legal library is not permitted by HIPAA or NNC 11 regulations. Given that plaintiff has been given access in a manner compliant with pertine 12 || administrative regulations, the court finds Defendants compliant with Judge Du’s order and as suc 13 |] there is no basis for sanctions. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 Plaintiffs motion for sanctions is DENIED subject to imposition of sanctions if Defendants « 16 }| not, within TEN (10) DAYS of entry of this order, provide the names of the URC members and produ: 17 || copies of Plaintiff's medical-dental kites to him as ordered in ECF No. 73. 18 Defendants shall file a notice indicating their compliance within TEN (10) DAYS or the cou 19 || will hold a show cause hearing as to why sanctions should not be imposed. 20 IT ISSO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 5, 2019. bit. CG. WILLIAM G. COBB 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28