John L. Miller v. D. A. White

Opinion

1 2

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 JOHN L. MILLER, Case No. CV 14-7543-GW (KK) 11 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AFFIRMING DISCOVERY ORDER 12 v.

13 D.A. WHITE, ET AL., Defendant(s). 14

15 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff John L. Miller (“Plaintiff”) constructively filed1 20 “Objection to the Court’s 5-27-20 Discovery Order” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 72(a). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 121. As set forth below, the Court has 22 considered Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s May 27, 2020 Order and 23 finds the Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 24 Objection is overruled and the May 27, 2020 Order is hereby AFFIRMED. 25 /// 26 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading 27 to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); 1 II. 2 BACKGROUND 3 On September 6, 2018, Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Los 4 Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”) in Lancaster, California, constructively filed a First 5 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging various claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 6 (“Section 1983”) against defendants D.A. White, D. Foreman, D. Barker, J. 7 Middleton, R. Henderson, and Paulette Finander each in their individual capacity.2 8 Plaintiff alleges violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights 9 generally arising out of his transfer on or about July 24, 2012, from Pleasant Valley 10 State Prison (“PVSP”) to CSP-LAC. Id. at 13. 11 On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff served Interrogatories Nos. 1-25 on defendant 12 Foreman and Interrogatory Nos. 26-46 on defendant Finander. Dkt. 60 at 18-19, 13 Plaintiff’s Declaration in support of First Motion to Compel (“Plf. MTC Decl.”), ¶ 2. 14 On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff served Interrogatories Nos. 47-71 on defendant 15 Henderson and Interrogatory Nos. 72-96 on defendant Barker. Id. 16 On August 11, 2019, Plaintiff constructively filed a Motion to Compel 17 Defendants to respond to Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories 18 (“First Motion to Compel”). Dkt. 60. 19 On November 8, 2019, the Court issued an Order regarding various issues and 20 requiring Defendants to serve responses without objections to Plaintiff’s 21 Interrogatories. Dkt. 74. 22 On January 30, 2020, Defendants served responses to Plaintiff’s 23 Interrogatories, but advised Plaintiff that signed verifications would be provided 24 25

26 2 Defendant Middleton is deceased and defendant White has not been located for service. Both defendants have, therefore, not been served and are not represented by 27 the Office of the Attorney General. Accordingly, for purposes of this Order, the term 1 under separate cover. Dkt. 105-1, Declaration of Kelli M. Hammond (“Hammond 2 Decl.”), ¶ 12. 3 On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff received the responses to his four sets of 4 Interrogatories. Dkt. 103 at 13-14, Declaration of Plaintiff in support of Second 5 Motion to Compel (“Plf. Decl.”), ¶ 2. 6 “On or about” February 6, 2020, Defendants served Interrogatory verifications 7 signed by defendants Foreman and Barker. Hammond Decl., ¶ 13. 8 On February 24, 2020, Defendants served Interrogatory verifications signed by 9 defendants Henderson and Finander. Id., ¶ 16. 10 On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second Motion to Compel various 11 discovery responses including supplemental responses to Interrogatories (“Second 12 Motion to Compel”). Dkt. 103 at 1-2. 13 On April 8, 2020, Defendants “re-served the paper copies of all discovery 14 responses, verifications, [and] responsive documents.” Hammond Decl., ¶ 28. 15 On April 10, 2020, Defendants filed an Opposition to the Second Motion to 16 Compel. Dkt. 105. 17 On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Reply noting he has not received 18 Interrogatory verifications from defendants Henderson or Finander, arguing 19 Defendants’ Interrogatory responses are improperly prepared by their counsel. Dkt. 20 108. 21 On May 27, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in 22 part Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel denying Plaintiff’s request for supplemental 23 responses to Interrogatories on the grounds that assistance of counsel is clearly 24 contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, but requiring Defendants to re- 25 serve Interrogatory verifications signed by defendants Henderson and Finander. Dkt. 26 114. 27 On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff constructively filed the instant Objection to the 1 in which Plaintiff alleges the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his request to compel 2 supplemental Interrogatory responses “was an abuse of discretion.” Id. 3 III. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Magistrate judges have the authority to issue non-dispositive orders, including 6 discovery motions. Almont Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., 7 Inc., No. CV 14-3053-MWF (VBKx), 2015 WL 12781594, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 8 2015) (“A discovery motion is a non-dispositive pre-trial matter”.). If timely 9 objections are filed, the district judge must consider such objections and “modify or 10 set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id. 11 Here, Plaintiff seeks review of a single issue in the May 27, 2020 non- 12 dispositive order resolving numerous discovery disputes. Dkt. 121. Specifically, 13 Plaintiff complains Defendants’ counsel prepared Defendants’ Interrogatory 14 responses and objects to the denial of his request to require Defendants to respond to 15 the Interrogatories “in their own words.” Dkt. 114 at 5. 16 Plaintiff fails to identify any clearly erroneous factual conclusions or legal 17 conclusions that are contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge considered Plaintiff’s 18 argument and denied his request because “[a]ssistance of counsel . . . is clearly 19 contemplated by [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 33,” which governs 20 interrogatories. Id. (citing Exxon Corp. v. F. T. C., 384 F. Supp. 755, 764 (D.D.C. 21 1974) (finding plaintiff’s argument that interrogatories were improperly prepared by 22 counsel even though they were signed by the responding party “must be deemed 23 frivolous”)). The Court does not find these conclusions clearly erroneous or contrary 24 to law. 25 Hence, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any grounds requiring modification of 26 the May 27, 2020 Order. 27 /// 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff's Objection is overruled and the 4 | May 27, 2020 Order is AFFIRMED. 5 6 | Dated: June 24, 2020 A forget KM, 54 7 HONORABLE GEORGE H.WU 3 United States District Judge Presented by: 9 10 Ceahyhe-- 11 | HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28