(PC) Wheatley v. Dominguez

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 RICARDO WHEATLEY, Case No.: 1:20-cv-00481-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND DEEM ADMISSIONS ADMITTED 14 D. DOMINGUEZ, et al., (Doc. 43) 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff Ricardo Wheatley is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 . This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 19 excessive force claims against Defendants Dominguez and Flores, Eighth Amendment failure to 20 intervene claims against Dominguez, Denney, and Hernandez, and Eighth Amendment medical 21 indifference claims against Dominguez, Denney, Flores, and Hernandez. 22 I. INTRODUCTION1 23 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on February 20, 2024. (Doc. 36.) 24 The scheduling order included a discovery deadline of October 20, 2024, and a dispositive motion 25 filing deadline of December 30, 2024. (Id.) [27] 1 This action was assigned to the undersigned “for all further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment” on 1 On October 3, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte unopposed motion to extend 2 the discovery and dispositive motion filing deadlines. (Doc. 42.) Specifically, the deadline for the 3 completion of all discovery was extended to December 19, 2024, and the deadline for filing 4 dispositive motions was extended to February 28, 2025. (Id. at 2.) 5 Defendants filed their motion to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses and to deem 6 admissions admitted on December 19, 2024. (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition or 7 statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion. 8 On January 6, 2025, Defendants filed a status update regarding their motion to compel. 9 (Doc. 44.) 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 Defendants’ Motion 12 Briefly stated, Defendants state they propounded the following discovery requests to 13 Plaintiff on October 9, 2024: (1) Defendants’ Requests for Admission, Set One; and (2) 14 Defendants’ Interrogatories, Set One. Responses were due within 45 days, or no later than 15 November 25, 2024. Defendants contend that during Plaintiff’s deposition of December 12, 2024, 16 when defense counsel “explained that he had not received Plaintiff’s discovery response,” 17 Plaintiff “replied that he did not respond” and indicated he would serve his responses. The 18 following day, defense counsel sent a follow-up letter to Plaintiff concerning the late discovery 19 responses and provided “a unilateral courtesy extension” to December 18, 2024. Defense counsel 20 also advised Plaintiff he would move to compel responses and seek sanctions if Plaintiff did not 21 provide responses. Defendants maintain Plaintiff has failed to respond to their discovery requests 22 and ask the Court to grant their motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the interrogatories 23 served October 9, 2024. Further, Defendants argue this Court should deem their requests for 24 admissions served October 9, 2024, admitted pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure. 26 Defendants’ Status Update 27 Defendants report that on December 31, 2024, defense counsel received an envelope 1 Defendants contend Plaintiff’s untimely responses do not resolve the pending motion because the 2 responses are deficient “and effectively unresponsive.” First, Defendants contend Plaintiff failed 3 to sign the responses and did not include a proof of service. Second, Plaintiff’s interrogatory 4 responses lack the required verification —the date and a signature. Third, Defendants argue 5 Plaintiff’s responses to the request for admissions “are non-responsive” because the majority of 6 those responses “fail to abide by his duty to admit or deny the requests.” Fourth, Defendants 7 maintain Plaintiff’s responses to the request for admissions are late “which still renders his full 8 admissions automatic.” Defendants conclude that in light of those deficiencies, the motion 9 “remains active—especially where Plaintiff has not signed responses.” 10 Analysis 11 District courts have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 12 litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606 , 616 13 (9th Cir. 2012). “‘[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and 14 its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial 15 of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.’” Dichter-Mad 16 Family Partners, LLP v. U.S., 709 F.3d 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 17 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)) (alteration omitted). 18 Interrogatories 19 Defendants originally asserted that Plaintiff failed to respond to the interrogatories served 20 October 9, 2024. Defendants contended that during his deposition last month Plaintiff admitted he 21 did not respond to the interrogatories and advised defense counsel that he would serve responses 22 to the discovery request. 23 Defendants served the following interrogatories to Plaintiff: 24 1. State the full names of all “officers” who were aware of your “mental break-down” as 25 alleged in your Second Amended Complaint. 26 2. Describe all facts that show how you know “officers” alerted Defendant Denney to 27 your “mental break-down” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint. 1 your “mental break-down” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint. 2 4. Describe how long it took Denney to come to your cell after Denney was alerted to 3 your “mental break-down” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint. 4 5. Describe how long it took Dominguez to come to your cell after Dominguez was 5 alerted to your “mental break-down” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint. 6 6. State when you cut your wrist as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint — 7 including the date and time. 8 7. State when you attempted to hang yourself as alleged in your Second Amended 9 Complaint —including the date and time. 10 8. Describe what time you covered the windows of your cell with paper and cardboard 11 before your incident with Defendants. 12 9. Explain why you covered the windows of your cell with paper and cardboard before 13 your incident with Defendants. 14 10. Describe each prior occurrence where you attempted suicide—including the date, 15 where you were housed, and how you attempted suicide. 16 11. Describe all facts that explain how you know Defendants Denney and Dominguez 17 opened the “tr[a]y slot” as alleged in your Second Amended Complaint. 18 12. Describe all facts that explain how you know Defendants Denney and Dominguez 19 noticed that you were “laying on the ground unresponsive” as alleged in your Second 20 Amended Complaint. 21 13. Describe when you became responsive after being unresponsive as alleged in your 22 Second Amended Complaint. 23 14. Describe all actions you took after Defendants opened the cell door. 24 15. Describe all of your injuries from the incident with Defendants. 25 16. Describe all medical care you received after the incident with Defendants. 26 17. State the amount of damages you are seeking in your lawsuit against Defendants. 27 18. Describe how you came up with the amount of damages in Interrogatory No. 17. 1 As noted in the status update filed by Defendants following the pending motion to compel, 2 Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses received by defense counsel on December 31, 2024, are 3 unsigned (see Doc. 44-1 at 4-10, 14) and therefore incomplete. Discovery responses must be 4 signed and dated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(A)-(B) (signature requirements and effect). Hence, 5 Defendants’ motion to compel, concerning the interrogatories, will be granted in part and Plaintiff 6 will be directed to provide properly verified interrogatory responses to Defendants within 14 7 days. 8 Admissions 9 Defendants originally contended Plaintiff failed to respond to the request for admissions 10 served October 9, 2024. Defendants contended that during his deposition last month Plaintiff 11 admitted he did not respond to the request for admissions. Defendants asked the Court to deem 12 the request for admissions admitted pursuant to Rule 36(a)(3). 13 Defendants sought the following requests for admissions from Plaintiff: 14 1. Admit the incident with Defendants occurred on July 18, 2019. 15 2. Admit that none of the Defendants saw you before you cut your wrist. 16 3. Admit that none of the Defendants saw you before you attempted to hang yourself. 17 4. Admit that you covered the windows of your cell with paper and cardboard before 18 your incident with Defendants. 19 5. Admit that you did not respond to Defendant Denney’s attempts to communicate with 20 you before Defendants entered your cell. 21 6. Admit that you were on the ground of your cell with a bedsheet around your neck 22 before correctional staff entered your cell. 23 7. Admit that you heard one of the Defendants request medical assistance. 24 8. Admit that you stood up when the correctional staff opened your cell door. 25 9. Admit that you moved toward the correctional staff when they opened your cell door. 26 (Doc. 43-1 at 5-7.) 27 Rule 36 provides in relevant part: 1 Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the 2 request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its 3 attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court. [4] 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). A failure to timely respond to requests for admissions results in 6 automatic admission of matters requested, even if requesting party makes no motion to establish 7 admissions; the rule is self-executing. Smith v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., 662 F.Supp.2d 1199 , 1229 8 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Medicor, 217 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1053 (C.D. Cal. 9 2002)). “Once admitted, the matter ‘is conclusively established unless the court on motion 10 permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.’” Conlon v. U.S., 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 11 2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b)). 12 Here, as indicated in Defendants’ status update, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ request 13 for admissions on December 18, 2024. (See Doc. 44-1 at 11-13.) Nonetheless, Defendants argue 14 the responses are largely unresponsive, late—and as such, already admitted—and are unsigned. 15 First, the Court agrees Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ requests for admissions are 16 largely unresponsive. Rule 36 provides in relevant part: “If a matter is not admitted, the answer 17 must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or 18 deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires 19 that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part 20 admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Plaintiff neither expressly 21 admitted nor expressly denied any of the twelve requests. A careful review of Plaintiff’s 22 responses reveals Plaintiff’s several responses to Defendants’ requests are unresponsive. For 23 example, in request number 1, Plaintiff was asked to admit that the incident in question occurred 24 on July 18, 2019. Plaintiff’s response is as follows: “Plaintiffs felt suicidal because of misconduct 25 by a staff member working on the floor on July 19, 2019 and was assaulted by defendants on July 26 18, 2019.” It is unclear whether Plaintiff admits or denies the incident occurred on July 18, 2019, 27 or how his response might amount to a partial denial. By way of another example, in request number 2, Plaintiff was asked to admit “that none of the Defendants saw you before you cut your 1 wrist.” Plaintiff responds, “Plaintiff then cut his wrist with an open razor, causing bleeding. 2 Plaintiff yelled to tower officer Hernandez that he needed medical treatment.” Plaintiff’s response 3 in no way addresses whether any defendant saw him before he cut his wrist. Plaintiff’s response 4 to request number 3 is similar; asked to admit that no defendant “saw” him before he attempted to 5 hang himself, Plaintiff wrote: “Plaintiff cut up a sheet and tried to hang himself, that’s when Sgt 6 D. Dominguez states his name and to remove the window covering.” Again, Plaintiff’s response 7 in no way addresses whether any defendant saw him before he attempted to hang himself. 8 Plaintiff will be directed to resubmit his responses to the requests for admissions by expressly 9 admitting or denying each request and by providing any additional information that is fairly 10 responsive to the request. Said another way, Plaintiff should first state whether he admits or 11 denies each particular request. Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to explain his admission or 12 denial for each request, he should respond to the language used in that specific request. 13 To the extent Defendants argue Plaintiff’s responses received by defense counsel on 14 December 31, 2024, are late, the Court is not persuaded. The envelope accompanying Plaintiff’s 15 responses is dated “12-18-24” and includes a staff name of “Adgweye,” badge number of 16 “90221,” and a staff signature. (Doc. 44-1 at 17.) See, e.g., Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 270 17 (1988) (pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be 18 filed as of the date the prisoner delivered it to the prison authorities for mailing to the court clerk); 19 Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103 , 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2009) (mailbox rule articulated in Houston 20 applies to civil rights actions); Jones v. Kuppinger, No. 2:13-cv-0451 WBS AC P, 2015 WL 21 5522290, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (“Although the parties dispute the calculation of the 22 date on which plaintiff served these discovery requests, the court finds that the appropriate date is 23 May 28, 2015, by application of the prison mailbox rule”). And defense counsel’s letter of 24 December 13, 2024, states: “As a courtesy, I will permit you to serve your full, substantive 25 responses on or before December 18, 2024.” (See Doc. 43-1 at 22, emphasis in original.) Thus, 26 while Plaintiff’s responses are somewhat deficient, they were timely submitted after the extension 27 granted by Defendants. Relatedly, the Court finds Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiff’s late 1 | late, and thus, are not self-executing so as to be admitted. See Smith, 662 F.Supp.2d at 1229 ; 2 | cf. Lanier v. San Joaquin Valley Officials Ass’n, No. 1:14-CV-01938-EPG, 2016 WL 4764669 , at 3 | *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016) (declining to consider defendant’s requests for admission deemed 4 | admitted, notwithstanding plaintiff did not timely respond, given that plaintiff did serve amended 5 || responses). 6 Plaintiffs responses to Defendants’ requests for admissions are timely. Nevertheless, the 7 || responses are lacking verification and require supplementation to include an express “admit” or 8 | “deny” response and to fairly respond to the substance of each request, as explained above. 9 | Plaintiff will be directed to provide an amended response to Defendants within 14 days. 10 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 11 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 12 1. Defendants’ motion to compel (Doc. 43) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in 13 part; 14 2. Plaintiff SHALL provide the required verification for his responses to the 15 interrogatories served October 9, 2024, within 14 days of the date of this order, by re16 serving Defendants with a properly completed response; and 17 3. Plaintiff SHALL amend his responses to the request for admissions served October 9, 18 2024, within 14 days of the date of this order, by re-serving Defendants with a 19 properly completed response, to (1) include a verification, (2) expressly “admit” or 20 “deny” each request, and (3) fairly respond to the substance of the request. 21 Any failure by Plaintiff to timely comply with this Order may result in the 22 | imposition of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ January 16, 2025 | Wr bo 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE