(PC) Johnson v. Dovey et al

Filing 160

ORDER Requiring Non-Party CDCR To Respond to Plaintiff's Motion 152 ; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion 154 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/15/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

9
10

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00640-LJO-DLB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING NON-PARTY CDCR
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

v.
(DOC. 152)

11

JOHN DOVEY, et al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

12

Defendants.
(DOC. 154)

13

/

14
15

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

18

against Defendants Dunnahoe, V. Ybarra, Cunningham, Medrano, Holguin, Valasquez, G.

19

Ybarra, Curliss, J. Gonzales, and K. Powell on claims of excessive force, inhumane conditions of

20

confinement, retaliation, and state law claims.

21

On March 9, 2011, the Court directed the United States Marshal to serve subpoenas duces

22

tecum on CDCR and Matthew Stainer, acting warden of California Correctional Institution,

23

where the events giving rise to this action occurred. CDCR and Mr. Stainer were to respond to

24

the subpoenas. Doc. 118. On November 7, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to

25

compel against non-party CDCR to produce the documents. Doc. 146. On December 12, 2011,

26

the Court granted CDCR’s motion for a protective order. Doc. 149.

27
28

Pending before the Court is: 1) Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against non-party CDCR,
filed January 6, 2012, and 2) Plaintiff’s motion regarding the protective order, filed January 20,
1

1

2012. Docs. 152, 154.

2

A.

3

January 6, 2012 Motion
In Plaintiff’s January 6, 2012 motion, Plaintiff contends that CDCR did not produce the

4

documents commanded by the Court. CDCR had filed a motion requesting an extension of time

5

to produce the records on January 3, 2012. Doc. 150. Plaintiff did not receive that motion until

6

after he had filed his motion for sanctions. However, Plaintiff contends that he did not receive

7

all the documents that CDCR was ordered to produce, listing documents A(3), A(3), A(7), A(8),

8

(A10), B(1), and B(5), as listed in the Court’s December 12, 2011 Order. Doc. 156. The Court

9

will require CDCR to respond to this motion. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to reply.

10

B.

11

January 20, 2012 Motion
In Plaintiff’s January 20, 2012 motion, Plaintiff disputes the applicability of the

12

protective order on documents A(1), A(2), A(5), and A(9). Pl.’s Mot. 2:9-28, Doc. 154. Plaintiff

13

seeks a copy of all the documents. Plaintiff contends that none of these documents are

14

confidential and should be provided to Plaintiff for his possession.

15

Regarding Document A(5), the copy that Plaintiff viewed was redacted. However,

16

Plaintiff is in possession of an unredacted copy. The Court finds such a motion frivolous.

17

CDCR is not required to produce a document that Plaintiff already possesses, as such production

18

is wasteful. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (court must limit extent of discovery if discovery can

19

be obtained from some other, more convenient source).

20

Regarding the other documents, the Court does not find it necessary to lift the protective

21

order as to those documents. Plaintiff may still inspect such documents, and is not prohibited

22

from access to these documents for trial. Plaintiff has not demonstrated substantial prejudice by

23

not having immediate possession of these documents.

24

C.

Conclusion And Order

25

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1.

27
28

CDCR is ordered to file a response to Plaintiff’s January 6, 2012 motion within
twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order;

2.

Plaintiff is provided seven (7) days from the date of service of CDCR’s response
2

1
2
3
4

in which to file a reply, if any;
3.

Plaintiff’s January 20, 2012 motion is denied as unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

March 14, 2012

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3