Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addresses plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery and for an extension of time in a prisoner civil rights action. The court grants relief concerning a discovery request for defendant J. Quiring’s Senior Hearing Officer certification, permits a further motion to compel against defendant J. Weiss, vacates the pending summary judgment motion, and revises the discovery and pretrial-motion deadlines. The court denies further relief concerning other document requests and denies the extension motion as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff was entitled to compel defendant J. Quiring to produce the certification document requested in Request for Production No. 4.
- Whether defendant J. Quiring was required to provide further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 5 and 7.
- Whether plaintiff should be permitted to pursue his second motion to compel against defendant J. Weiss after receiving late discovery responses.
- Whether defendants' motion for summary judgment should proceed while relevant discovery disputes remained unresolved.
- Whether the scheduling order should be modified to permit resolution of the remaining discovery disputes.
Holdings
- Defendant J. Quiring must search for and produce the document demonstrating that he was certified by the Chief Disciplinary Officer or designee to serve as a senior hearing officer at plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, or file a discovery response describing the efforts made and inability to locate it.
- No further response or production was required for Request No. 5 or Request No. 7.
- Plaintiff's second motion to compel against J. Weiss was deemed timely, and J. Weiss was ordered to respond with an opposition or statement of non-opposition.
- The March 7, 2025 motion for summary judgment was premature because discovery disputes remained pending and was vacated without prejudice to re-noticing after those disputes were resolved.
- The discovery deadline was extended to July 11, 2025 solely for specified discovery disputes, and the pretrial-motions deadline was extended to September 12, 2025.
Key quotations
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” (at 3)
“District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’” (at 4)
“The Court overrules defendant J. Quiring’s objections to RPD No. 4, and orders defendant to search for and produce the document demonstrating that defendant J. Quiring was certified by the CDO or designee to serve as the Senior Hearing Officer at plaintiff’s prison disciplinary hearing.” (at 6)
“Thus, the Court finds that the motion for summary judgment is premature because discovery disputes remain pending.” (at 8)
Factual background
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that defendants retaliated against him for filing a grievance, subjected him to segregated housing and prolonged deprivation of outdoor exercise despite serious mental-health needs, violated due process in connection with a rules-violation hearing, and conspired to violate his constitutional rights. During discovery, defendant J. Weiss initially failed to timely respond to a request for production, later serving responses after plaintiff moved to compel. Defendant J. Quiring produced some training records but objected to or declined to produce documents concerning his certification as a senior hearing officer and policies allegedly permitting deviation from disciplinary procedures.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a civil-rights complaint and first amended complaint alleging First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment violations, due-process violations, and conspiracy. After discovery disputes arose, plaintiff moved to compel further responses to requests for production and sought additional time to oppose defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion to compel as to one request, denied it in all other respects, vacated the summary-judgment motion without prejudice because discovery remained incomplete, and revised the scheduling deadlines.