Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wiggin v. Schneider

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

May 22, 2014

JAMES O'NEIL WIGGIN, Plaintiff,
v.
RN SCHNEIDER, LT. MATHEWS, JANE DOE SERGEANT, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE

KAREN L. STROMBOM, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff James O'Neil Wiggin seeks an extension of the discovery deadline. Dkt. 44. He contends an extension is necessary because Defendants have failed to respond to all of his written discovery requests and failed to produce photographs and video evidence. He also seeks to discover names of additional defendants so that he can send additional written discovery. Finally, he states that counsel for Defendants has ignored his requests to meet and confer. Dkt. 44-1. According to Defendants, Mr. Wiggins has submitted a total of twenty-eight interrogatories, twenty-two requests for production, and fifty-one requests for admission. Defendants have responded to the written discovery they received prior to the filing of this motion. Defendants received four additional sets of discovery signed on the date Mr. Wiggin mailed his motion, including the discovery mentioned in his motion. Mr. Wiggin has also spoken with Defendants' counsel and the parties have worked out an agreement satisfying both parties' concerns regarding Mr. Wiggin's previously submitted written discovery. Having reviewed the motion, opposition (Dkt. 47), and balance of the record, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On December 4, 2013, Defendants received Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Matthews. Dkt. 47, Exhibit 1, Declaration of Brian J. Considine, ¶ 2. On December 11, 2013, Defendants received Second Set of Interrogatories and [First] Requests for Production to Defendant Matthews. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 3. On December 24, 2013, Defendants received Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Department of Corrections (DOC). Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 4.

On January 2, 2014, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss and stay discovery. Dkt. 22. On February 10, 2014, the Court recommended dismissal of the DOC as a Defendant and recommended denial of the remaining aspects of Defendants' motions to dismiss. Dkt. 35. The Court also denied Defendants' motion to stay discovery. Dkt. 34. On February 26, 2014, Judge Bryan issued his Order approving the recommendations. Dkt. 36.

On February 27, 2014, Defendants submitted responses and objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Matthews and Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to DOC. Dkt. 47, Exhibit 1, ¶ 5. On March 10, 2014, Defendants submitted a supplemental response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Department of Corrections. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 6. According to counsel for Defendants, responses to the discovery sent to the DOC was sent as a courtesy in an attempt to help Mr. Wiggin more efficiently engage in discovery even through the DOC was dismissed from the case. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 5.

On March 18, 2014, counsel for Defendants received a letter from Mr. Wiggin requesting copies of documents identified as DEFS 1-22 in Defendant's responses and objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to DOC. Dkt. 47, Exhibit 1, ¶ 7. On March 31, 2014, Defendants mailed copies of DEFS 1-22 to Mr. Wiggin. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 8. On April 4, 2014, Defendants mailed their responses and objections to Plaintiff's [First] Set of Requests for Production to Defendant Matthews. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 9. Defendants also received Plaintiff's First Sets of Requests for Admission to Defendants Matthews and Jones. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 10.

On May 1, 2014, Defendants submitted their responses and objections to Plaintiff's First Sets of Requests for Admission to Defendants Matthews and Jones. Dkt. 47, Exhibit 1, ¶ 11. Defendants also had a telephonic conference with Mr. Wiggin regarding his submitted discovery requests. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 12. For the first time, Mr. Wiggin indicated he had submitted interrogatories and requests for production to Defendant Schneider and Jones. Defendants informed him they never received interrogatories and requests for production to Defendants Schneider and Jones. Mr. Wiggin responded that he had recently mailed new discovery for Defendants Schneider and Jones. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 12.

According to counsel for Defendants, the parties also discussed production of color copies of photographs and an alleged surveillance video. Dkt. 47, Exhibit 1, ¶ 13. Defendants explained to Mr. Wiggin that he would not be allowed to receive the surveillance video, but they agreed to send him color copies of photographs identified in their discovery requests. Mr. Wiggin also agreed to narrow the scope of his discovery requests for names of medical providers assigned to the infirmary and the segregation housing unit during the time he was present in these two places. Dkt. 47, Exhibit 1, ¶ 13. Defendants agreed to provide information based on Mr. Wiggin's new scope of inquiry related to medical staff. Id.

On May 2, 2014, Defendants received Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant Matthews. Dkt. 47, Exhibit 1, ¶ 14. On May 5, 2014, Defendants received Plaintiff's [First] Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant Schneider and Plaintiff's [First] Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant Schneider. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 15. Mr. Wiggin marked them as "second sets, " but these were the first sets of discovery received by Defendants for Defendant Schneider. Id. On May 6, 2014, Defendants received Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Defendant Matthews. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 16.

Counsel for Defendants states that Defendants expect to mail responses to Mr. Wiggin's latest written discovery by June 5, 2014. Dkt. 47, Exhibit 1, ¶ 17. Defendants also expect to mail supplemental responses to Mr. Wiggin by June 6, 2014. Id., Exhibit 1, ¶ 18. The parties' discovery deadline is June 6, 2014. Dkt. 18.

DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 allows a case schedule to be modified "only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The pretrial schedule may be modified "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Id.

Mr. Wiggin fails to show good cause to modify the June 6, 2014 discovery deadline. The record reflects that at the time he filed his motion for extension, he had received responses and objections to all written discovery except for his requests for admission that had responses due by May 5, 2014. Dkt. 47, Exhibit 1, ¶¶ 5-9, 11. Additionally, Mr. Wiggin filed his motion even though he knew that he had a telephone conference with Defendants' counsel to meet and confer about his discovery on May 1, 2014[1]. See Dkt. 44, at 3. During that telephone conference, Mr. Wiggin agreed to narrow the scope of his questions/requests and the Defendants agreed to supplement their discovery responses based on the new focus of Mr. Wiggin's questions and requests. Dkt. 44, Exhibit 1, ¶¶ 12-13.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff's motion for an extension of the discovery deadline (Dkt. 44) is DENIED.

2) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for Defendants.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.