Zavala v. Chrones et al

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/11/2011 denying 50 Motion to Compel without prejudice.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KEITH ZAVALA, 9 10 CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01352-OWW-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. 50) v. 11 CHRIS CHRONES, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 / 14 15 Plaintiff Keith Zavala (“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 on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed May 24, 2010, against Defendants Chris Chrones, S. 19 Kays, D. Smith, C. Martin, and Soto. On February 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. 20 Doc. 50. On March 4, 2011, Defendants Martin and Soto filed an opposition. Doc. 53. On 21 March 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed his reply. Doc. 57. 22 Plaintiff moves for the production of the following documents: 23 1. All written statements, originals or copies, identifiable as reports about the incident on September 15, 2007, on and of Facility B Kern Valley State Prison, made by prison and civilian employees of the Department of Corrections and prisoner witnesses, and other departments or outside agencies. 2. List of all prisoners housed in A.S.U. #1 and A.S.U. B1 from July 15, 2007 through January 1, 2008. 3. List of all employees working on Facility B, including A.S.U. #1 (South) and A.S.U. B1, at the time of the incident of September 15, 2007, and three months prior. 1 24 25 26 27 28 1 Pl.’s Mot. Compel 1-2, Doc. 50. 2 Defendants contend that they should not be required to produce the above documents 3 because they are not in their possession, custody, or control, even though they can request these 4 documents from CDCR. Defs.’ Opp’n 3:25-5:21, Doc. 53. Defendants contend that Plaintiff 5 should be required to subpoena these records. Id. at 5:24-6:13. Defendants’ counsel contends 6 that he turned over certain medical records and all reports regarding the September 15, 2007 7 incident. Defs.’ Opp’n, Richard Price Decl. ¶ 13, Doc. 53-1. 8 The California Code of Regulations defines access to a prisoner’s case records: 9 No case records file, unit health records, or component thereof shall be released to any agency or person outside the department, except for private attorneys hired to represent the department, the office of the attorney general, the Board of Parole Hearings, the Inspector General, and as provided by applicable federal and state law. Any outside person or entity that receives case records files or unit health records is subject to all legal and departmental standards for the integrity and confidentiality of those documents. 10 11 12 13 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(e). The Attorney General’s office represents these Defendants, 14 and thus can obtain these records pursuant to the Code of Regulations. See Bovarie v. 15 Schwarzenegger, 2011 WL 719206, *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011); see also Woodall v. California, 16 2010 W.L. 4316953, *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2010); Ochotorena v. Adams, 2010 WL 1035774, * 3 17 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010); Moody v. Finander, 2010 WL 3911462 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2010). 18 However, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is deficient on other grounds. Plaintiff fails to 19 explain the relevance of the documents sought. See Bovarie, 2011 WL 719206 at *5 (denying 20 motion to compel as to interrogatories when the plaintiff failed to explain relevance of 21 documents sought and defendants lacked direct access). Regarding the list of inmates and 22 employees, Plaintiff fails to explain why such lists are relevant to this action. Regarding the 23 reports pertaining to the September 15, 2007 incident, Plaintiff was apparently provided with 24 certain medical records and all reports regarding the incident. Plaintiff does not explain why 25 such response was deficient. Additionally, it is unclear what documents Defendants would have 26 control over which belong to other departments or agencies. The Court will provide Plaintiff 27 with leave to file an amended motion to compel as to these discovery requests, explaining the 28 relevancy of the requested production of documents, and the deficiency of the responses 2 1 provided. 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed February 3 18, 2011, is DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended motion to compel, 4 curing the deficiencies identified herein, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this 5 order. 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 11, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?