Kindred v. California Department of Mental Health et al

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING 58 Plaintiff's Third Motion to Compel and ORDER CLOSING DISCOVERY signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/22/2013. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD S. KINDRED,

12

15

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL ORDER CLOSING DISCOVERY
HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Doc. 58.)

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:08-cv-01321-AWI-GSA-PC

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Richard S. Kindred (APlaintiff@), a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (ACSH@) in

19

Coalinga, California, is proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

20

1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on September 5, 2008. (Doc. 1.)

21

This case now proceeds on the original Complaint, against defendants Barbara Devine and

22

Linda Fields, for money damages, for the violation of Plaintiff's rights to freely exercise his

23

religion under the First Amendment.1

24
1

25
26
27
28

On July 22, 2010, the Court dismissed defendants Department of Mental Health, Mayberg, Radavsky,
and Clark, and Plaintiff's supervisory liability claim, based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. (Doc. 9.) On
September 12, 2011, the Court dismissed defendant Ahlin, Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims, official capacity claims, and
claims for declaratory relief, via Defendants' motion to dismiss and for failure to state a claim, with leave to
amend. (Doc. 30.) On September 21, 2011, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed with the original
Complaint against only defendants Devine and Fields, for money damages, on Plaintiff's First Amendment claim.
(Doc. 31.)
1

1

On October 20, 2011, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing a deadline of

2

June 20, 2012, for the parties to complete discovery, including the filing of motions to compel.

3

(Doc. 38.) On May 30, 2012, the Court issued an order extending the discovery deadline to

4

October 15, 2012. (Doc. 45.) On November 13, 2012, the Court issued an order extending the

5

discovery deadline to August 10, 2013. (Doc. 61.)

6

On November 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a third motion to compel production of documents

7

from defendant Devine (ADefendant@).2 (Doc. 49.) Defendant has not filed an opposition.

8

Plaintiff=s third motion to compel is now before the Court.

9

II.

PLAINTIFF=S ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS

10

A.

11

At the time of the events at issue, Plaintiff was housed at CSH, defendant Barbara

12

Devine was the Program Director for Program One at CSH, and defendant Linda Fields was a

13

member of the Level of Care Staff at CSH. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Devine denied him

14

permission Ato order a prayer rug, even though [prayer rugs] are not considered contraband by

15

the hospital and other patients at the hospital have them.@

16

Plaintiff alleges that Athis action [permission to order prayer rug] was denied by defendant

17

Barbra [sic] DeVine [sic], who was the Program Director for Program One.@ Id. at 4. Plaintiff

18

also claims that one of his spiritual books was damaged, alleging that Athis was done by

19

defendant Linda Fields, level of care staff and fully supported by her supervisors, who as of

20

date have not taken any action to replace or compensate plaintiff for the cost of the book.@ Id.

Plaintiff's Allegations against defendants Devine and Fields

(Cmpl., Doc. 1 at 3-4 &IV.)

21

B.

22

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ACongress shall

23

make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . .

24

. .@ U.S. Const. amend. I. Prisoners Aretain protections afforded by the First Amendment,@

25

including the free exercise of religion. O=Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987).

Plaintiff=s First Amendment Claim - Civil Detainee

26
2

27
28

Plaintiff=s first motion to compel, filed on July 20, 2012, was denied as moot by the Court on February
27, 2013. (Docs. 48, 64.) Plaintiff’s second motion to compel, filed on August 20, 2012, was denied on March
12, 2013. (Docs. 49, 65.)
2

1

AUnder the Constitution, >reasonable opportunities must be afforded to all prisoners to exercise

2

the religious freedom guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.=@ Pierce v. County

3

of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1209 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 n. 2,

4

92 S.Ct. 1079 (1972) (addressing the rights of convicted prisoners)). A[C]ivil detainees retain

5

greater liberty protections than individuals detained under criminal process . . . .@ Jones v.

6

Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). AHowever, as with other First

7

Amendment rights in the inmate context, detainees' rights may be limited or retracted if

8

required to >maintain [ ] institutional security and preserv[e] internal order and discipline.= @

9

Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1209 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 549, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979);

10

citing see, e.g., Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997)).

11

ARestrictions on access to >religious opportunities= . . . must be found reasonable in light

12

of four factors: (1) whether there is a >valid, rational connection= between the regulation and a

13

legitimate government interest put forward to justify it; (2) >whether there are alternative means

14

of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates;= (3) whether accommodation of the

15

asserted constitutional right would have a significant impact on guards and other inmates; and

16

(4) whether ready alternatives are absent (bearing on the reasonableness of the regulation).@

17

Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1209 (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90, 107 S.Ct. 2254 (1987);

18

citing see also Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 126 S.Ct. 2572 (2006); and citing Mauro v.

19

Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058-59 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc)). AFurther, [when] dealing with

20

[civil] detainees, to satisfy substantive due process requirements the restriction or regulation

21

cannot be intended to serve a punitive interest.@ Pierce, 526 F.3d at 1209 (citing Bell, 441 U.S.

22

at 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861).

23

III.

MOTION TO COMPEL

24

A.

25

Under Rule 26(b), A[U]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is

26

as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to

27

any party's claim or defense C including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition,

28

and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b), 34, and 37(a)

3

1

who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any

2

matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.3 Relevant information need not be

3

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

4

admissible evidence.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

5

Pursuant to Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Aany party may serve on

6

any other party a request to produce and permit the party making the request . . . to inspect and

7

copy any designated documents . . . which are in the possession, custody or control of the party

8

upon whom the request is served.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). A[A] party need not have actual

9

possession of documents to be deemed in control of them.@ Clark v. Vega Wholesale Inc., 181

10

F.R.D. 470, 472 (D.Nev., 1998) quoting Estate of Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 294

11

(D.Nev. 1991). AA party that has a legal right to obtain certain documents is deemed to have

12

control of the documents.@ Clark, 81 F.R.D. at 472. Under Rule 34(b), the party to whom the

13

request is directed must respond in writing that inspection and related activities will be

14

permitted as requested, or state an objection to the request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ.

15

P. 34(b)(2). Also, A[a] party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of

16

business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.@ Fed.

17

R. Civ. P. 34(b)(E)(I).

18

Pursuant to Rule 37(a), a party propounding discovery may seek an order compelling

19

disclosure when an opposing party has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete

20

responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). A[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or

21

response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).

22

AIt is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required

23

constitutes a waiver of any objection.@ Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d

24

1468, 1473 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.1981)). The

25

moving party bears the burden of demonstrating Aactual and substantial prejudice@ from the

26
27
28

3

AEvidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.@ Fed. R. Evid. 401.
4

1

denial of discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations

2

omitted.).

3

A.

4

On September 21, 2012, Plaintiff served his Request for Production of Documents, Set

5

Two, on Defendant Devine. On October 26, 2012, Plaintiff received Defendant’s Response to

6

his Request for Production of Documents, Set Two. Plaintiff now seeks an order compelling

7

Defendant Devine to produce documents in response to his Request for Production of

8

Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1 through 7, as follows.

9

>

Plaintiff=s Third Motion to Compel

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (RFP), SET TWO, NO. 1:

10

Produce all Administrative Directives, Internal Management Directives, Special

11

Orders wherein the topic is related to Ethics of Coalinga State Hospital and/or its

12

Employees and those standards that Coalinga State Hospital and/or its Employees are to

13

abide by including A.D. 101, Administrative Directives and the Reviewing Process;

14

A.D. 218, Patient Care Policy Review Committee; A.D. 262, Nursing Policy and

15

Procedure Committee; A.D. 644, Trust Office Functions; Business and Professional

16

Code 310-313.5; State Administrative Manual (SAM); Patients’ Rights Policies;

17

Professionals Code of Ethics; A Copy of the Contract that The California Office Of

18

Patients’ Rights entered into with the Department of Mental Health and/or Coalinga

19

State Hospital; Professional Standards of Care and Practice; Special Orders 001.12;

20

009; 208; 215.01; 231.02; 234; 239.02; 252.01; 262; 416.02; 519; 718.01; 722.03; 801;

21

812; 813.01; and 907.

22

>

23

Objections: compound, overbroad, equally available to plaintiff, not

24
25

RESPONSE TO RFP, SET TWO, NO. 1:

reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence.
>

RFP, SET TWO, NO. 2:

26

Produce the California Code of Regulations wherein the topic related to fire

27

safety inspection including title 8, title 19, title 22, and title 24. In addition, the State

28

Fire Marshal’s (SFM) regulation; NFRA life safety codes, California Health and Safety
5

1

Code section 1250; California Fire Codes (CFC) Chapter 8 Section 807.1.2; and

2

Environment of Care PMT.

3

>

4

Objection: compound, overbroad, equally available to plaintiff, not

5
6

RESPONSE TO RFP, SET TWO, NO. 2:

reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence.
>

RFP, SET TWO, NO. 3:

7

Produce all California Code of Regulations Title 22.

8

>

9

Objection: compound, overbroad, equally available to plaintiff, not

10
11

RESPONSE TO RFP, SET TWO, NO. 3:

reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence.
>

RFP, SET TWO, NO. 4:

12

Produce all California Welfare and Institution Codes where in the topic is

13

related to Wellness and Recovery Planning Team (WRPT) including 4312. In addition,

14

California Administrative Code; Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care

15

Organization (JACHO); Enhancement Plan and Wellness and Recovery Model Support

16

System; and Clinical Outcome Evaluation System.

17

>

18

Objection: compound, overbroad, equally available to plaintiff, not

19
20

RESPONSE TO RFP, SET TWO, NO. 4:

reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence.
>

RFP, SET TWO, NO. 5:

21

Produce all documents wherein the topic relates to complaint procedures,

22

individuals including California Welfare and Institution Code section 5325.9.

23

>

RESPONSE TO RFP, SET TWO, NO. 5:

24

Objection: attorney client privilege, attorney work product privilege,

25

vague, compound, overbroad, equally available to plaintiff, not reasonably likely

26

to lead to admissible evidence.

27

///

28

///
6

1

>

RFP, SET TWO, NO. 6:

2

Produce all documents wherein the topic relates to individuals’ mail and

3

packages, including California Code of Regulations, title 9, and California Welfare and

4

Institution Code 4126.

5

>

RESPONSE TO RFP, SET TWO, NO. 6:

6

Objection: attorney client privilege, attorney work product privilege,

7

compound, overbroad, equally available to plaintiff, not reasonably likely to

8

lead to admissible evidence.

9

>

RFP, SET TWO, NO. 7:

10

Produce all documents where the topic relates to training of staff, including the

11

Department of Mental Health’s policy directive 308 (training) and policy directive 707

12

(supervisory training).

13

>

RESPONSE TO RFP, SET TWO, NO. 7:

14

Objection: attorney client privilege, attorney work product privilege,

15

compound, overbroad, equally available to plaintiff, not reasonably likely to

16

lead to admissible evidence.

17

Plaintiff’s Arguments

18

First, Plaintiff argues that his motion should be granted because documents that are a

19

result of the regular course of business, such as the contract that the California Office of

20

Patients’ Rights entered into with the Department of Mental Health and/or Coalinga State

21

Hospital, requested in Request No. 1, are not covered under any type of attorney client or

22

attorney work product privilege.

23

Second, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to copies of the requested documents because

24

he is indigent, has no means to pay the costs for copies, and should not have to pay for copies

25

since the documents are readily available in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied.

26

Ruling:

27

As discussed above, Rule 26 provides that parties may obtain discovery regarding any

28

non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, and relevant information
7

1

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

2

discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, for good cause, the court

3

may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Id.

4

The documents requested by Plaintiff in his Request for Production of Documents, Set

5

Two, are largely copies of legal authority of the state of California, and rules, policies and

6

procedures of the Department of Mental Health and Coalinga State Hospital. Defendant shall

7

not be required to produce copies of legal authority, rules, policies, and procedures equally

8

available to all parties. Many of Plaintiff’s requests are also vague and overbroad. For

9

example, in Request No. 1, Plaintiff requests “all Administrative Directives, Internal

10

Management Directives, Special Orders wherein the topic is related to Ethics of Coalinga State

11

Hospital and/or its Employees are to abide by, including ...” (Motion, Doc. 58 at 7 [Exh. 1])

12

(emphasis added). To require Defendant to make an extensive search to locate all of the

13

documents within the scope of Plaintiff’s request would be overly burdensome. Moreover,

14

Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that the requested discovery is relevant to his

15

claim for violation of the First Amendment.

16

Defendant to provide him with free copies merely because he is indigent.

Further, Plaintiff is not entitled to compel

17

In Request No. 1, Plaintiff requests a copy of the “contract that the California Office of

18

Patients’ Rights entered into with the Department of Mental Health (now known as the

19

California Department of State Hospitals) and/or Coalinga State Hospital.” Plaintiff argues that

20

this document is not available to him. This request is vague and nonspecific as to date,

21

description, or topic, and it would be overly burdensome for Defendants to search for every

22

contract within the scope of Plaintiff’s request.

23

In Requests Nos. 5, 6, and 7, Plaintiff requests all documents wherein the topic relates

24

to complaint procedures, individuals’ mail and packages, and training of staff. These requests

25

are vague and overbroad, and Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that these

26

documents are relevant within the meaning of Rule 26.

27
28

Therefore, Defendant shall not be compelled to make any further response to Plaintiff’s
Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.
8

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Plaintiff=s third motion to compel, filed on November 1, 2012, is DENIED; and

4

2.

Discovery in this action is now closed.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

9
10
11

August 22, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9