Zavala v. Chrones et al

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING 65 Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 09/20/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

KEITH ZAVALA,

8

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01352-LJO-DLB PC
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL

v.
(DOC. 65)

10

CHRIS CHRONES, et al.,

11

Defendants.
/

12
13

Plaintiff Keith Zavala (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

14

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

15

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

16

on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed May 24, 2010, against Defendants Chris Chrones, S.

17

Kays, D. Smith, C. Martin, and Soto. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended motion to

18

compel, filed May 23, 2011.1 Doc. 65. Defendants filed their opposition on June 9, 2011. Doc.

19

66. Plaintiff filed his reply on June 22, 2011. Doc. 67. The matter is submitted pursuant to

20

Local Rule 230(l).

21

I.

22

Production Of Documents
In responding to discovery requests, Defendants must produce documents which are in

23

their “possession, custody or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Actual possession, custody or

24

control is not required, however. “A party may be ordered to produce a document in the

25

possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff had previously filed a motion to compel on February 18, 2011. Doc. 50. The
Court denied that motion without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff failed to explain his dispute
with Defendants’ responses to his request for production of documents.
1

1

control over the entity who is in possession of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162

2

F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

3

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have more documents in their possession, custody, or

4

control than were produced. Plaintiff moves for the production of the following documents:

5

1.

All written statements, originals or copies, identifiable as reports about the incident on

6

September 15, 2007, on and of Facility B Kern Valley State Prison, made by prison and

7

civilian employees of the Department of Corrections and prisoner witnesses, and other

8

departments or outside agencies.

9

2.

10
11
12

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.

13

Pl.’s Mot. Compel 1-6, Doc. 65. Plaintiff has now submitted his arguments as to why

14

Defendants’ responses were deficient.

15

A.

16

Plaintiff contends that Defendants or Defendants’ counsel has control of additional

Request For Production No. 1

17

documents. Mot. Compel 2:11-27. Plaintiff contends, for example, that Defendant Soto

18

informed him of 1) an internal memorandum regarding Plaintiff’s safety concerns, and 2)

19

communications with the California Inspector General’s office about Defendant Martin. Id. at

20

3:18-4:1. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants should produce documents in support of

21

their answers, which deny many of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the September 15, 2007

22

incident. Id. at 4:3-16.

23

Defendants contend that they have discovered Rules Violation Reports (“RVR”) and

24

related documents for inmates Prescott and Reyes, who apparently were involved in the attack on

25

Plaintiff at issue. Defs.’ Opp’n 3:8-18. Defendants contend that any other documents related to

26

the incident are in the control of the Kern County district attorney’s office, Kern County Superior

27

Court, or Kern County grand jury, and that Plaintiff should obtain such documents through

28

subpoena. Id.
2

1

Plaintiff contends that he has not received the RVR for inmate Reyes. Pl.’s Reply 2.

2

Plaintiff also contends that there are interdepartmental communications, including internal affairs

3

investigations and confidential reports generated after the alleged incident. Id.

4

Defendants’ counsel declares that he has turned over all documents in CDCR’s

5

possession or control regarding the attack on Plaintiff. The Court finds that Defendants’

6

additional responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests are sufficient. The Court reminds

7

Defendants that they are under a continuing obligation to turn over any additional documents that

8

they later discover which are responsive to Plaintiff’s request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). For

9

example, if the memorandum concerning Plaintiff’s safety concerns and communications with

10

the Inspector General’s office concerning Defendant Martin, as mentioned in Plaintiff’s motion

11

to compel, are in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, Defendants and their counsel have

12

an obligation to supplement their responses.

13

Plaintiff also contends that Defendants have documents that support their alleged

14

argument that Plaintiff caused his own injury. Pl.’s Mot. Compel 4:3-16. Defendants’ answer

15

merely denies Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraphs 12 through 15 of the second amended

16

complaint. Defs.’ Answer, Doc. 27; Doc. 59. There is no indication in the record that any

17

particular document or other evidence supporting their answer exists. If such documents do

18

exist, are in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants, and are responsive to Plaintiff’s

19

discovery requests, Defendants are required to supplement their response.

20
21

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s request for
production of documents No. 1 is denied.

22

B.

23

Plaintiff contends that a list of all prisoners housed in ASU (administrative segregation

Requests Nos. 2 and 3

24

unit)No. 1 and B1, from July 1, 2007 through January 1, 2008, is necessary for Plaintiff’s action,

25

as there may be relevant witnesses to statements made by Defendant Martin that formed the basis

26

of the alleged assault on Plaintiff. Pl.’s Mot. Compel 4:21-5:5. Plaintiff contends that a list of

27

employees working on facility B, including ASU No. 1 and ASU B1, from September 15, 2007

28

to three months prior, is necessary to determine what staff were aware of the attack that would
3

1

happen to Plaintiff. Id. at 5:11-25.

2

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has the list of names of relevant witnesses, as seen on

3

the RVRs provided to Plaintiff regarding the incident at issue. Defs.’ Opp’n 3:19-4:5.

4

Defendants contend that to produce the lists over a period of three to six months would become

5

attenuated and overly burdensome. Id. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s requests amount to a

6

fishing expedition. Id. Plaintiff contends that this expedition is necessary because of the nature

7

of the suit. Pl.’s Reply 3.

8
9

Though the Court is aware of the nature of Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s requests are
unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the production of admissible

10

evidence. Defendants’ counsel attests that in communicating with CDCR, he learned that to

11

create such a list would be extremely burdensome and time-consuming because of the time

12

period, movement of inmates, and three shifts of employees. Defs.’ Opp’n, Richard B. Price

13

Decl. ¶ 6. Defendants’ counsel attests that a list would have to be created to respond to a court

14

order compelling further response. Id. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the

15

production of documents does not govern the creation of documents that are not currently in

16

existence, electronically stored or otherwise.

17

Plaintiff is not left without means of discovering the identities of potential witnesses

18

relevant to this action. Plaintiff, for example, is aware of at least one inmate witness, and has

19

been or will be provided RVRs which contain information as to other potential witnesses,

20

inmates or prison staff. Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents Nos. 2 and 3, however,

21

are overly burdensome.

22

II.

23
24
25
26

Conclusion And Order
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel,

filed May 23, 2011, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

September 20, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
4