Jackson v. Yates et al
Filing
100
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 81 Motion for Order Compelling Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/13/14. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
Y. A. YATES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:11-cv-00080-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY
(ECF No. 81)
17
18
I.
Introduction
19
Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
20
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Mendez for
21
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Daley, Samonte,
22
Nichols, Valdez and Gonzales for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant Mendez to produce
23
24
documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (ECF No. 81.) On August 5, 2013,
25
Defendant Mendez filed an opposition to the motion to compel. (ECF No. 82.) Following extensions
26
of time, Plaintiff filed his reply on October 29, 2013. (ECF No. 95.) The motion is deemed
27
submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
28
///
1
1
II.
A. Parties’ Arguments
2
3
Request for Production of Documents
Plaintiff served Defendant Mendez with a request for production of documents on December 8,
4
2012. Defendant Mendez submitted a response on January 25, 2013. Thereafter, Plaintiff reportedly
5
sent defense counsel two letters requesting a date to meet and confer so that Plaintiff could review and
6
copy needed documents. According to Plaintiff, defense counsel did not respond to the letters.
7
Plaintiff now moves to compel responses to eight of his nine requests for production.
8
9
Defendant Mendez counters that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as procedurally defective
because Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with a copy of Defendant Mendez’s response to the
10
request for production of documents for evaluation on the merits. Defendant Mendez further counters
11
that even if the Court were to consider the merits of the motion, Plaintiff has failed to identify the
12
objections he finds inadequate. Additionally, Defendant Mendez argues that he has responded to
13
Plaintiff’s discovery requests in full.
14
Attached to Plaintiff’s reply, filed on October 29, 2013, is a copy of Defendant Mendez’s
15
responses to discovery. In addition to attaching Defendant Mendez’s responses, Plaintiff also claims
16
that the stated objections were made for improper purposes, such as harassment and delay. Plaintiff
17
further claims that he has not received all requested, non-privileged documents from Defendant
18
Mendez.
19
20
21
As Plaintiff has provided a copy of Defendant Mendez’s responses, the Court will, in the
interests of judicial economy, consider the motion to compel and responses on their merits.
B. Legal Standard
22
In responding to discovery requests, defendants must produce documents or other tangible
23
things which are in their “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Responses must
24
either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to
25
the request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B).
26
Actual possession, custody or control is not required. “A party may be ordered to produce a
27
document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document
28
or has control over the entity [that] is in possession of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162
2
1
F.R.D. 603, 619 (N.D. Cal.1995); see also Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309945, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan.
2
30, 2007) (“Property is deemed within a party’s possession, custody, or control if the party has actual
3
possession, custody, or control thereof or the legal right to obtain the property on demand.”).
C. Requests for Production (“RFP”)
4
5
RFP NO. 1: Produce all administrative grievances / 602’s and staff complaints filed by CDCR
6
prisoners including complaints filed by detainees, or prisoners in other facilities, and other
7
jurisdictions, accusing you of using or attempting to use excessive and unnecessary force.
8
RESPONSE: Responding Party (Mendez) objects that this request is compound, and vague
9
and ambiguous with respect to the terms “accusing you of using or attempting to use,” and “excessive
10
and unnecessary force.” Insofar as this request would require production of Plaintiff’s administrative
11
grievance filed in connection with his claims in this lawsuit (i.e., Log Number PVSP-10-00356), and
12
the materials included in the related appeal package, Mendez objects that . . . these documents are
13
already in Plaintiff’s possession, as he included copies of this administrative grievance as an
14
attachment to his original complaint. Without waiving these objections, Mendez responds as follows:
15
Aside from Plaintiff’s relevant administrative grievance (Log Number PVSP-10-00356),
16
Mendez does not have possession, custody, or control of any additional documents responsive to this
17
request.
18
Discussion:
19
Based on Defendant’s response, Plaintiff appears to have received all responsive documents in
20
the possession of Defendant Mendez. Although Defendant might have the legal right to obtain
21
additional responsive documents, Plaintiff’s request is overbroad. All administrative grievances, 602’s
22
and staff complaints filed by CDCR prisoners, along with detainees or prisoners in other facilities and
23
jurisdictions, accusing Defendant Mendez of the use of excessive force would require a search of the
24
files for every inmate ever housed in a facility where Defendant Mendez was employed. Not all of
25
these inmate files are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R.
26
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Further, given the scope of the request, the burden and expense of a search for the
27
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Accordingly,
28
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP No. 1 is DENIED.
3
1
RFP No. 2: Produce all documents and evidence (in accordance with Federal Rules of
2
Evidence section 1101) pertaining to, resembling, or indicating you used or attempted to use excessive
3
or unnecessary force.
4
Response: Objection. This request is compound, overly broad, and vague and ambiguous in
5
terms of time and place, as well as with respect to the terms “documents and evidence, “ “pertaining
6
to, resembling, or indicating,” and “excessive or unnecessary force.” The request also asks Mendez to
7
render a legal conclusion; namely, by asking him to determine which responsive documents, if any,
8
fall within the legal category of “excessive and unnecessary force.” To the extent that any responsive
9
documents exist, Mendez further objects that this request seeks information pertaining to persons—
10
correctional staff and inmates alike—who are not parties to this action, and that that information is
11
protected by the privacy rights of such persons under federal and state law. Without waiving these
12
objections, Mendez responds as follows:
13
Mendez does not have any responsive documents in his possession, custody or control.
14
Discussion:
15
Plaintiff’s request is both vague and overbroad. It is neither clear regarding the documents
16
requested, nor is it limited in time or place. Given the broad scope of the request, the burden and
17
expense of a search for the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P.
18
26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP No. 2 is DENIED.
19
RFP No. 3: Produce all documentation and evidence (in accordance with Federal Rules of
20
Evidence 1101) demonstrating or accusing you of morally lax character, moral turpitude, and having a
21
readiness to lie.
22
Response: Mendez objects that this request is compound, overly broad, and vague and
23
ambiguous with respect to the terms “documentation and evidence,” “morally lax character,” “moral
24
turpitude,” and “having a readiness to lie.” As phrased, this request also appears to be limitless in
25
terms of time, scope, and source. Further objection is made on the grounds that this request calls for
26
documents neither relevant to the claims at issue in this case, nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to
27
the discovery of admissible evidence. Last, Mendez objects that this request is entirely without
28
4
1
foundation and is intended solely to harass. Without waiving these objections, Mendez responds as
2
follows:
3
4
Mendez is not aware of, and does not have in his possession, custody, or control, any
documents responsive to this request.
5
Discussion:
6
Based on Defendant Mendez’s response, he is not aware of any documents responsive to
7
Plaintiff’s request. Further, Defendant Mendez properly objects to the breadth and scope of this
8
request. As a practical matter, it is not limited in time, place, scope or source. Given the broad scope
9
of the request, the burden and expense of a search for the proposed discovery, which is not known to
10
exist, outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to
11
compel further response to RFP No. 3 is DENIED.
12
RFP No. 4: Produce all case titles, case numbers, and case information pertaining to state and
13
federal lawsuits brought against you by prisoners and non-prisoners for any and all conduct pertaining
14
to, resembling, or indicating excessive and unnecessary use of force, assault, or any violent and
15
reckless behavior.
16
Response: Objection. As it is phrased, this request does not call for the production of
17
documents, tangible things, or any other items covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. So too,
18
the request is compound, overly broad, and vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “case
19
information pertaining to,” “conduct pertaining to, resembling, or indicating,” “excessive and
20
unnecessary force,” and “other violent and reckless behavior.” This request also asks Mendez to
21
render a legal conclusion; namely, by asking him to determine which responsive documents, if any,
22
fall within the legal category of “excessive and unnecessary force.” To the extent that any responsive
23
documents exist, Mendez objects that this request seeks information pertaining to persons who are not
24
parties to this action, and that information is protected by the privacy rights of such persons under
25
federal and state law. Without waiving these objections, Mendez responds as follows:
26
27
In addition to Plaintiff’s allegations in this case, Mendez was named as a defendant, based on
allegations that arguably fall within the scope of this request, in the following matters: Tills v.
28
5
1
Lamarque, et al., No. C-04-3763 SI (N.D. Cal.), and Madrid v. Pease, et al., No. 11CECG02306
2
(Fresno Cnty. Sup. Ct.).
3
Discussion:
4
Defendant Mendez correctly objects that RFP No. 4 does not request documents or other items
5
contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Further, the request is overly broad because it
6
seeks information regarding all lawsuits ever filed against Defendant Mendez involving force, assault,
7
or reckless behavior. Given the scope of the request, the burden and expense of a search for the
8
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Even if the request
9
were limited to lawsuits involving prisoners, Defendant Mendez likely would have possession or
10
knowledge only of those complaints, if any, that were personally served on him. Defendant Mendez
11
has complied with the request to the extent that he is able by providing the case title and number of
12
those lawsuits believed responsive to Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response
13
to RFP No. 4 is DENIED.
14
15
16
RFP No. 5: Produce all documents on background work history, reprimands of conduct,
verbal document warnings, and memos filed by prison officials. (internal records of documentation)
Response: Mendez objects that this request is compound, overly broad, and vague and
17
ambiguous with respect to the documents sought. Moreover, the request appears to be limitless in
18
terms of time, place and subject matter. Likewise, the request calls for documents that are neither
19
relevant to the claims and parties in this case, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
20
admissible evidence. Because the request does not identify the documents sought with reasonable
21
specificity, Mendez is unable to respond.
22
Discussion:
23
Defendant Mendez properly objected to this RFP as overly broad. It is not limited in terms of
24
time, place or subject matter. As such, the burden and expense of a search for the proposed discovery
25
outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Further, this request seeks documents
26
that are not relevant to the claims and parties and that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the
27
discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
28
response to RFP No. 5 is DENIED.
6
1
2
3
RFP No. 6: Produce a copy of any and all documents relating to your title as a supervising
sergeant, training and education.
Response: Objection. This request is compound, and vague and ambiguous with respect to
4
the terms “relating to your title as a supervising sergeant, training and education.” In addition, the
5
request seeks production of documents that are neither relevant to the claims in this case, nor
6
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Mendez further objects that this
7
request is unduly burdensome and oppressive, as it will require him to incur substantial cost searching
8
for documents that are irrelevant, or only marginally relevant, to the claims in this case. Without
9
waiving these objections, Mendez responds as follows:
10
11
Mendez produces the following as Attachment A: a copy of Pleasant Valley State Prison’s
post orders (i.e., a job description) for the position of Correctional Sergeant.
12
Discussion:
13
This RFP is overly broad and unduly burdensome. It is not limited in terms of time, place or
14
subject regarding Defendant Mendez’s education and training. It also is not limited in its request for
15
documents relating to the position of Correctional Sergeant. As such, the burden and expense of a
16
search for the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
17
Further, this request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claim of excessive force and are not
18
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
19
Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP No. 6 is DENIED.
20
21
22
RFP No. 7: Produce the roster for all prison guards / officials who specifically worked 3rd
watch on C-Facility on 2-2-2010.
Response: Mendez does not have in his possession, custody, or control, any documents
23
responsive to this request.
24
Discussion:
25
The Court cannot compel Defendant Mendez to produce responsive documents not in his
26
possession, custody or control. It is evident that such documents, if they exist, would be in the
27
possession, custody and control of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
28
Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking a third-party subpoena for the production of such records.
7
1
However, Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Mendez to provide a further response to RFP No. 7
2
is DENIED.
3
4
5
RFP No. 8: Produce all written statements, original or copies identifiable as reports about the
incident dated 2-2-2010 by D.O.C.S., employees, and witnesses.
Response: Mendez objects that this request is compound, and vague and ambiguous with
6
respect to the terms “the incident dated 2-2-2010,” and “D.O.C.S.” If “the incident” Plaintiff is
7
referring to is the February 2, 2010 physical examination performed by Licensed Vocational Nurse
8
Samonte on the Facility C medical clinic, as documented on Plaintiff’s CDC Form 7219, Mendez
9
notes that Plaintiff is already in possession of this document, as he has included it as an exhibit to his
10
11
12
original complaint. Without waiving these objections, Mendez responds as follows:
Aside from the CDC Form 7219 referenced above, Mendez does not have in his possession,
custody, or control, any additional documents responsive to this request.
13
Discussion:
14
As with the prior request, the Court cannot compel Defendant Mendez to produce documents
15
not in his possession, custody or control. It is evident that such documents, if they exist, would be in
16
the possession, custody and control of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
17
Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking a third-party subpoena for the production of such records,
18
provided that such request clearly identifies the “incident” and the documents sought. However,
19
Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Mendez to provide a further response to RFP No. 8 is
20
DENIED.
21
III.
Conclusion and Order
22
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling discovery from Defendant
23
Mendez, which was filed on July 22, 2013, is DENIED.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
January 13, 2014
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
8
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?