Ford v. Wildey et al
Filing
54
ORDER GRANTING In Part 45 Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory Number 25 as to Defendant Wildey and Interrogatory Number 22 as to Defendant Marshall and DENYING In Part 45 Motion to Compel in all other respects, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/6/14. (Martin-Gill, S) (30-Day Deadline)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BENNY FORD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
G. WILDEY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Case No.: 1:10-cv-01024-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 45]
Plaintiff Benny Ford is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
I.
20
RELEVANT HISTORY
This action is proceeding against Defendant Wildey for excessive force in violation of the
21
22
Eighth Amendment and against Defendant Marshall for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth
23
Amendment.
On April 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to his requests for
24
25
interrogatories and admissions. Defendants filed an opposition on May 15, 2014.
26
27
///
28
///
1
1
II.
2
DISCUSSION
3
A.
Legal Standard
4
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of
5
confinement.
As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would
6
otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to
7
involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ.
8
P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 37, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &5. Further, where
9
otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or
10
infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in
11
determining whether disclosure should occur.
12
Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21, 104 S.Ct. 2199 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad
13
purpose and language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court
14
for the Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto
15
v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right
16
of privacy that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB
17
PC, 2012 WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect
18
discoverable information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns);
19
Robinson v. Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar.
20
16, 2012) (issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the
21
safety and security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2
22
(E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information
23
asserted to risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v.
24
Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011)
25
(requiring defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective
26
order).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v.
27
However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The
28
discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of
2
1
discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d
2
1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain discovery
3
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party=s claim or defense, and for good cause,
4
the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed.
5
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial
6
if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.
7
(quotation marks omitted).
8
Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel
9
bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV
10
S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at
11
*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis
12
v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).
13
This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the
14
motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why
15
the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack,
16
2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4.
17
However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these
18
procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigation; therefore, to the extent possible, the
19
Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d
20
606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir.
21
2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).
22
B.
Motion to Compel
23
1.
Interrogatories
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(2) provides that an interrogatory may relate to any
25
matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b). An interrogatory is not objectionable merely
26
because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the
27
court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or
28
until a pretrial conference or some other time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2).
3
1
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(b)(1)(A) provides the interrogatories must be answered by
2
the party to whom they are directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(A). Further, each interrogatory must, to
3
the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath and the grounds
4
for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) & (4).
5
2.
Defendant Wildey
6
a.
Interrogatory Number 14 (Set One):
7
“On the date of 7-16-2009, were you aware that it was unconstitutional for correctional officers
8
to intentionally squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a inmates wrists with all your strength?” (Pl.’s
9
Mot. To Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. B at 18.1)
10
Response:
11
Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that
12
Defendant “intentionally squeezed a pair of handcuffs around any inmate’s wrist on July 16, 2009 with
13
all Defendant’s strength” or any other date. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responded: it
14
is unconstitutional for a correctional officer to intentionally and maliciously use force on an inmate
15
with the intent of causing serious bodily injury. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, at Ex. B. at 19.)
16
Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:
17
Plaintiff argues Defendant Wildey’s response to interrogatory number 14 is not a direct
18
response and contains excessive verbiage.
19
Ruling:
20
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Wildey provided a sufficient response to
21
this request for admission by stating his awareness of the unconstitutionality if an officer intentionally
22
and maliciously using force on an inmate with the intent to cause serious bodily injury. Such response
23
is the proper legal definition of excessive force as it applies to Plaintiff’s claim under the Eighth
24
Amendment. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (for claims arising out of the use of
25
excessive physical force, the issue is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or
26
restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37,
27
28
1
The pages number reflect the pagination as it appears on the Court’s Case Management Electronic Case Filing System.
4
1
130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178 (2010) (per curiam) (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7) (internal quotation marks
2
omitted); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2013)).
3
b.
Interrogatory Number 15 (Set One)
4
“On 7-16-2009, was it against rules, procedures, or policies of the California Department of
5
Corrections and Rehabilitation for a correctional officer to intentionally squeeze a pair of handcuffs
6
around a inmates wrists with all your strength?” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. B at 19.)
7
Response:
8
Defendant objects to this interrogatory as it assumes facts not in evidence specifically that
9
Defendant “intentionally squeezed a pair of handcuffs around any inmate’s wrist on July 16, 2009 with
10
all Defendant’s strength,” or any other date. Without waiving this objection, Defendant responded: it
11
is against policy and procedure for a correctional officer to intentionally and maliciously use force on
12
an inmate with the intent of causing serious bodily injury. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. B
13
at 19.)
14
Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:
15
Plaintiff argues Defendant Wildey’s response to interrogatory number 15 is not a direct
16
response and contains excessive verbiage.
17
Ruling:
18
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Wildey provided a sufficient response to
19
this request by advising Plaintiff that it is against policy and procedure for a correctional officer to
20
intentionally and maliciously use force on an inmate with the intent of causing serious bodily injury,
21
which is the correct legal definition of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See
22
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. at 6.
23
c.
24
“What are the names of previous lawsuits you’ve been named as a defendant in?” (Pl.’s Mot.
25
Interrogatory Number 25 (Set Two)
to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. A at 10.)
26
Initial Response:
27
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, burdensome,
28
irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without
5
1
waiving said objections, I do know the names of other lawsuits where I have been named a defendant,
2
and after a reasonable and diligent search, I was not able to locate that information.” (Pl.’s Mot. to
3
Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. A at 11: see Bajwa Decl. § 2, Ex. A.)
Defense counsel submits that in preparing the opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel,
4
5
counsel discovered a typographical error in the original responses propounded on Plaintiff.
6
Accordingly, Defendant Wildey has amended the response to this interrogatory as reflected below.
7
(Bajwa Decl., Ex. A.)
8
Supplemental Response:2
9
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, burdensome,
10
irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without
11
waiving said objections, I do not know the names of other lawsuits where I have been named a
12
defendant, and after a reasonable and diligent search, I was not able to locate that information.
13
Plaintiff’s Objections to Response:
14
Plaintiff argues Defendant Wildey has not provided a full and complete response to this
15
interrogatory.
16
Ruling:
17
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant Wildey cannot plausibly claim that he not
18
aware of the names of previous lawsuits where he was named a defendant, and Defendant makes no
19
specific showing of the details of the diligent search which he claims he conducted. Accordingly,
20
Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted.
21
3.
Defendant Marshall
22
a.
Interrogatory Numbers 16, 17, and 19
23
In his opposition, Defendant Marshall indicates that in the interest of cooperation, he will
24
amend and re-serve his responses to Interrogatories Numbers 16, 17, and 19. (Bajwa Decl. ¶ 4, Ex.
25
C.) The Court will address each interrogatory along with the supplemental response provided by
26
Defendant Marshall.
27
2
28
Defendant Wildey amended his response to Plaintiff’s request for interrogatories on May 9, 2014, subsequent to the date
Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on April 24, 2014. (Bajwa Decl., Ex. D.)
6
1
b.
Interrogatory Number 16
2
“On 7-16-2009, did you know that a correctional officer could be held liable under the eighth
3
amendmend (sic) of the Federal Constitution, if he see’s another officer physically assaulting a
4
innocent inmate and he doesn’t intervene?”
5
Initial Response:
6
Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for
7
speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, and is vague as to the term “innocent.” Without waiving said
8
objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are allowed to use force as necessary to maintain
9
the safety and security of the prison institution, consistent with use of force policies in place at the
10
institution and with their training.
11
Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:
12
Plaintiff objected that Defendant Marshall did not respond to the direct question. (Pl.’s Mot. to
13
Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. F, at 2.)
14
Supplemental Response:3
15
Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for
16
speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, and is vague as to the term “innocent.” Without waiving said
17
objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are allowed to use force as necessary to maintain
18
the safety and security of the prison institution, consistent with use of force policies in place at the
19
institution and with their training. Yes, I am aware that correctional officers have a duty to ensure the
20
safety and security of all inmates, from other inmates and correctional staff, and must intervene to stop
21
any assaults on inmates by other inmates or correctional staff.
22
Ruling:
23
In light of Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response, Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be
24
denied. Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response is sufficient by advising Plaintiff that
25
correctional officers have a duty to ensure the safety and security of all inmates and must intervene to
26
27
28
3
Defendant Marshall amended his response to Plaintiff’s request for interrogatories on May 9, 2014, subsequent to the
date Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on April 24, 2014. (Bajwa Decl., Ex. C.)
7
1
stop any assault by other individuals. United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1447 n.25 (9th Cir. 1994),
2
rev’d on other grounds, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (“[P]olice officers have a duty to intercede when their
3
fellow officers violate the constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen.”).4
4
c.
Interrogatory Number 17
5
“On 7-16-2009, did you know it was a violation of the California Code of Regulations Title 15,
6
sections 3268.1(?)(1), and 3268.1(c) for a correctional officer to see a inmate being physically
7
assaulted by a corrupt fellow officer and not to intervene or report the criminal activity to your
8
supervisor?”
Initial Response:
9
Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, is compound,
10
11
calls for speculation and is vague as to the terms “physically assaulted by a corrupt fellow officer” and
12
“not to intervene or report the criminal activity to your supervisor.” Without waiving said objections,
13
Defendant responds: Correctional officers are allowed to use force as necessary to maintain the safety
14
and security of the prison institution, consistent with use of force policies in place at the institution and
15
with their training.
16
Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:
17
Plaintiff objected that Defendant Marshall did not answer the direct question as phrased and
18
seeks to eliminate the unnecessary rhetoric.
19
Supplemental Response:
20
Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for
21
speculation calls for a legal conclusion, and is vague as to the terms “physically assaulted by a corrupt
22
fellow officer.” Without waiving said objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are
23
4
24
25
26
27
28
The Court is mindful of the fact that Defendants amended certain responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests only after
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. If any party attempts to withhold documents or provide adequate responses to discovery
requests until the other side institutes litigation over the matter through a motion to compel or other relief, then the Court
may be inclined to rely solely on the initial response in deciding the matter and for other relief as the Court deems just.
The Court is very attuned to the fact that litigation may require amendments to discovery responses in light of the focused
litigation, but is also mindful that it often does not. Careful attention should be given to a first response so as to avoid
unnecessary litigation. Here, a number of the responses were not addressed properly the first time. Careful attention will
be given to avoid wasting the limited resources of this court, especially as in this case when two judicial officers are
involved with the case. If persistence and failure to heed the warnings of the court is the course of practice, then initial
disclosure may be the required course of action in the future.
8
1
allowed to use force as necessary to maintain the safety and security of the prison institution,
2
consistent with use of force policies in place at the institution and with their training. Yes, I know that
3
it is a violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3268.1 et. seq. for a correctional
4
officer not to report a use of force upon an inmate by another correctional officer.
5
Ruling:
6
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response was
7
sufficient to respond to the interrogatory because it adequately set forth the Defendant’s knowledge of
8
the applicable law.
9
d.
Interrogatory Number 19
10
“On or before 7-16-2009, did you know it was a violation of a inmate’s constitutional rights
11
under the Eight Amendmend [sic] for a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a
12
inmates wrists extremely tight and refuse to loosen them?”
13
Response:
14
Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it assumes facts not in evidence, calls for
15
speculation and is vague as to the terms “a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of handcuffs around a
16
inmates wrists extremely tight and refuse to loosen them.” Without waiving said objections,
17
Defendant responds: Correctional officers are taught to place handcuffs on inmates, and check the
18
handcuffs to ensure the cuffs are not too tight by sliding their index finger between the handcuffs and
19
the inmate’s wrist.
20
Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:
21
Plaintiff contended that Defendant Marshall failed to respond to the simple and direct question
22
and seeks to eliminate the unnecessary rhetoric.
23
Supplemental Response:
24
Defendant objects to this interrogatory because it calls for a legal opinion, assumes facts not in
25
evidence, calls for speculation and is vague as to the terms “a correctional officer to squeeze a pair of
26
handcuffs around a inmates wrists extremely tight and refuse to loosen them.” Without waiving said
27
objections, Defendant responds: Correctional officers are taught to place handcuffs on inmates, and
28
check the handcuffs to ensure the cuffs are not too tight by sliding their index finger between the
9
1
handcuffs and the inmate’s writs. If the handcuffs are too tight, an inmate can feel discomfort or pain.
2
I know that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to use force on an inmate with the intent of
3
causing serious bodily injury.
4
Ruling:
5
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. Defendant Marshall’s supplemental response is
6
sufficient to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatory by setting forth Defendant’s knowledge of the law.
7
e.
8
“What are the name(s) of previous lawsuits you have been named as a Defendant in?” (Pl.’s
9
Interrogatory Number 22 (Set One)
Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. D. at 46.)
10
Response:
11
Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is over broad, burdensome,
12
irrelevant, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. No
13
response will be provided. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. D at 47.)
14
Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:
15
Plaintiff argues he is entitled to a “truthful” response because Defendant Marshall is
16
“pretending to be an innocent and conscientious officer.”
17
Ruling:
18
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Defendant Wildey cannot plausibly claim that he not
19
aware of the names of previous lawsuits where he was named a defendant, and Defendant makes no
20
specific showing of the details of the diligent search which he claims he conducted. Accordingly,
21
Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this interrogatory is granted.
22
4.
Request for Admission-Defendant Wildey
23
A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending
24
action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to facts, the application
25
of law to fact, or opinions about either, and the genuineness of any described documents. Fed. R. Civ.
26
P. 36(a).
27
///
28
///
10
1
a.
Request for Admission Number 39 (Set One)
2
“While employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR),
3
you have had medical training, which could assist you in, making a credible medical determination
4
when dealing with inmates.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. C at 35.)
5
Response:
6
Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague as to the terms “medical
7
training, which could assist you in, making a credible medical determination when dealing with
8
inmates,” and subject matter. Based on this objection, Defendant cannot answer the request as
9
phrased. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. C at 35.)
10
Plaintiff’s Objection to Response:
11
Plaintiff argues that Defendant Wildey refused to respond to this request for admission, but
12
13
gave a “medical” type answer to another request for admission in number 37.
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Wildey’s failure to timely respond to
14
this request for admission results in the automatic admission of the matters requested pursuant to
15
Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff further argues Defendant Wildey
16
should be compelled at the very minimum to give a further response to this request for admission.
17
Ruling:
18
Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to this request for admission is denied. As an initial
19
matter, Plaintiff provides no authority to support his contention that Defendant Wildey provided a
20
“medical” type response to request for admission number 37, by responding: “Defendant objects to
21
this request on the grounds that it calls for an opinion that this Defendant is not qualified to opine on,
22
and therefore seeks irrelevant information not likely to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant
23
further objects on the grounds that this request is an incomplete hypothetical. Defendant further
24
objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for speculation and is vague as to the term ‘severe
25
pain.’ Without waiving said objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant admits that the
26
application of handcuffs can cause discomfort if the handcuffs are applied so tightly that they
27
constrict blood flow to the wrist.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 45, Ex. C at 35.) Defendant
28
11
1
correctly acknowledges that his response to this request is based on general knowledge, i.e. if a
2
person’s body part is squeezed too tight, blood flow can be constricted.
3
The term “medical training” is vague as medical training encompasses a wide array of
4
specialties, ranging from basic CPR training to a medical degree. Plaintiff’s request is also vague as
5
to the terms “making a credible medical determination when dealing with inmates,” because this type
6
of situation can involve a variety of possible circumstances. The Court is unable to determine the
7
exact nature of the request as Plaintiff was not sufficiently specific in his request. Accordingly, the
8
Court will not require a further response to this request for admission, and Plaintiff’s motion to
9
compel is denied.
10
III.
11
ORDER
12
Based on the foregoing,
13
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Number 25 as to
15
Defendant Wildey and Interrogatory Number 22 as to Defendant Marshall. Defendants
16
are ordered to respond to such interrogatories within thirty days from the date of service
17
of this order; and
18
2.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED in all other respects.
19
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 6, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
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?