O'Brien v. Garza

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order and motion to subpoena non-party documents, while denying his motion to compel. The court finds good cause to extend discovery deadlines, authorizes subpoenas for documents held by California Medical Facility offices, and concludes that the requested reports, personnel records, and certain text messages are protected by official-information, privacy, attorney-client, or common-interest protections.

Holdings

1. Good cause existed to modify the scheduling order because plaintiff appeared to have acted diligently and could not reasonably meet the existing deadlines under the circumstances presented.
2. Plaintiff was entitled to issuance of subpoenas for relevant documents held by non-parties because he had attempted unsuccessfully to obtain the information from defendants and the record did not establish an undue burden or expense.
3. The motion to compel would not be denied as untimely because the court granted plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order and extended the deadline for discovery motions.
4. Defendants satisfied their burden to show that the requested Confidential Fact Gathering Reports, Allegation Inquiries, and personnel records were protected from compelled disclosure.
5. Defendants established that the withheld text messages implicated attorney-client privilege and the common-interest doctrine, so the court would not compel their production.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established good cause to modify the scheduling order and extend the discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines.
2. Whether plaintiff could obtain subpoenas for relevant non-party documents that defendants were unable to procure.
3. Whether plaintiff's motion to compel should be denied as untimely after the discovery-motion deadline was subsequently extended.
4. Whether defendants established that investigative reports and personnel records were protected from disclosure under the official-information privilege, privacy interests, and related protections.
5. Whether defendants established that withheld text messages were protected by attorney-client privilege and the common-interest doctrine.

Disposition

other