Ransom v. Herrera et al

Filing 204

ORDER Overruling Defendants' Objections to the Court's June 14, 2018 Order Following Second Discovery Conference 188 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/23/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,

10

13

v.
DANNY HERRERA and RICKY
BRANNUM,

(ECF NO. 188)

Defendants.

14

Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

15
16

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT’S JUNE 14,
2018 ORDER FOLLOWING SECOND
DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG (PC)

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On July 19, 2018, Defendants filed objections to the magistrate judge’s order denying

17
18

certain of Defendants’ motions to compel. (ECF No. 188). The requests at issue all ask

19

Plaintiff to list all facts, documents, and/or witnesses that support individual claims.

20

Defendants do not claim that Plaintiff is hiding any piece of evidence or the names of any

21

witnesses. This dispute concerns the extent that a party should be compelled to list which

22

specific pieces of evidence support which specific claims.
The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s reasons for denying Defendants’

23
24
25
26

motions and overrules Defendants’ objections.
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s claims stem from the allegation that correctional officer defendants falsified

27

charges against him, by falsely claiming that Plaintiff had assaulted them. Based on these

28

allegedly false charges, Plaintiff was subject to criminal charges and a rules violation report.
1

1

All charges were eventually dismissed, but Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to isolation

2

and other punitive measures, in addition to criminal proceedings, as a result of the false

3

charges.

4

The scope of this case has gone through significant litigation over several years.

5

Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin initially screened the complaint on August 12, 2014, finding

6

cognizable claims for conspiracy and violation of due process, and giving Plaintiff leave to

7

amend the complaint. (ECF No. 9). After Plaintiff requested clarification of the screening

8

order (ECF No. 12), Judge Austin ordered the case to proceed on certain claims, including

9

conspiracy and violation of due process. (ECF No. 16). With permission, Plaintiff filed an

10

amended complaint on January 23, 2015 (ECF No. 24). That complaint was screened by

11

Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on February 16, 2016, and Judge Grosjean ordered the case

12

to proceed on the same claims as Judge Austin did. (ECF No. 27).

13

Defendants then filed motions to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff could not state a

14

conspiracy claim against defendants Herrera or Brannum because he did not suffer a

15

constitutional deprivation and that Castro should be dismissed because Plaintiff cannot state a

16

due process claim. (ECF No. 32-1, p. 2; ECF No. 38-1, pgs. 1-2). After many extensions of

17

time and various related pleadings, Judge Grosjean recommended that Defendants’ motions to

18

dismiss be granted, but with leave to amend. (ECF No. 61). That 22-page order reviewed the

19

law regarding false charges, and explained under what circumstances such false charges give

20

rise to constitutional violations. Suffice it to say that the law in this area is not simple. This

21

Court adopted those findings and recommendations (over Defendants’ objections), granting the

22

motions to dismiss with leave to amend. (ECF No. 69).

23

Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint on May 15, 2017. (ECF No. 72). The

24

magistrate judge screened the complaint and issued findings and recommendations (ECF No.

25

76), which were adopted by this Court on August 2, 2017 (ECF No. 77). As held in that order:

26

“This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 72), against

27

defendants Brannum and Herrera on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process

28

claim, Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim under Devereaux, retaliation claim,

2

1

section 1983 malicious prosecution claim, and conspiracy claim. (ECF No. 77, p. 2)

2

The case then proceeded, including discovery. In April 2018, Defendants filed a number of

3

motions to compel, which are the subject of the current objections. Defendant Herrera filed a

4

motion to compel further responses to his First Set of Interrogatories. (ECF No. 146). Defendant

5

Brannum filed a motion to compel further responses to his First Set of Interrogatories. (ECF No.

6

159). Defendants filed a motion to compel further responses to their First Set of Requests for

7

Production of Documents. (ECF No. 158). Defendants also filed a motion to determine the

8

sufficiency of Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant Brannum’s requests for admissions. (ECF No.

9

147). As described below and in Defendants’ objections, all of the underlying requests ask for

10

Plaintiff to identify which evidence and witnesses relate to which claims or defendants.
According to Defendants’ objections,1 it appears they are contesting the magistrate

11
12
13

judge’s ruling on the following discovery requests:
•

Defendant Herrera’s Interrogatory No. 1 asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting his
claim that Defendant Herrera violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as Plaintiff alleges
within his Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 146, Ex. B at Request No. 1.)

•

Defendant Herrera’s Interrogatory No. 3 asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting his
claim that Defendant Herrera retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising his Fifth
Amended right to remain silent as alleged within his Second Amended Complaint.
(ECF No. 146, Ex. B and Request No. 3.)

•

Defendant Herrera’s Interrogatory No. 4 asks Plaintiff to identify each and every person
by name and addresses who Plaintiff contends have knowledge of any fact supporting
his allegation that Defendant Herrera had retaliated against him as alleged within his
Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 146, Ex. B and Request No. 4.)

•

Defendant Herrera’s Interrogatory No. 5 asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting his
claim that Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as alleged
within his Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 146, Ex. B at No. 5.)

•

Defendant Herrera’s Interrogatory No. 8 asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting his
claim for malicious prosecution against Defendant Herrera. (ECF No. 146, Ex. B at No.
8.)

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

1
Due to the volume of discovery requests and motions, the Court found it difficult to recreate the various
requests and so has taken these directly from Defendants’ objections.

3

1

•

Defendant Herrera’s Interrogatory No. 11 asks Plaintiff to state all facts in support of
Plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to compensatory damages as he has alleged in
his Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 146, Ex. B Request No. 11.)

•

Defendant Herrera’s Interrogatory No. 12 asks Plaintiff to state all facts in support of
Plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to punitive damages as he has alleged in his
Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 146, Ex. B Request No. 12.)

•

Defendant Brannum’s Interrogatory No. 1 asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting his
claim that Defendant Brannum violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as Plaintiff
alleges within his Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 159, Ex. C at Request No. 1.)

•

Defendant Brannum’s Interrogatory No. 3 asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting his
claim that Defendant Brannum retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising his Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent as alleged within his Second Amended Complaint.
(Decl. De La Torre-Fennell, Ex. A at No. 3.)

•

Defendant Brannum’s Interrogatory No. 4 asks Plaintiff to identify each and every
person by name and addresses who Plaintiff contends have knowledge of any fact
supporting his allegation that Defendant Brannum had retaliated against him as alleged
within his Second Amended Complaint. (Decl. De La Torre-Fennell, Ex. A at No. 5.)

•

Defendant Brannum’s Interrogatory No. 5 asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting his
claim for malicious prosecution against Defendants as alleged within his Second
Amended Complaint. (Decl. De La Torre-Fennell, Ex. A. at No. 5.)

•

Defendant Brannum’s Interrogatory No. 6 asks Plaintiff to state all facts supporting his
claim that Defendant Brannum fabricated evidence against Plaintiff as alleged within
the Second Amended Complaint. (Decl. De La Torre-Fennell, Ex. A. at No. 6.)

•

Defendant Brannum’s Interrogatory No. 7 asks Plaintiff to identify all persons by name
and address who Plaintiff contends support his claim that Defendant Brannum
fabricated evidence against Plaintiff as alleged within the Second Amended Complaint.
(Decl. De La Torre-Fennell, Ex. A. at No. 7.)

•

Defendant Brannum’s Interrogatory No. 9 asks Plaintiff to identify all facts supporting
his response to Defendant Brannum’s Request for Admission No. 1 if his response was
anything other than an unqualified admission. (Decl. De La Torre-Fennell, Ex. A. at No.
9.) Defendant Brannum Request for Admission No. 1 requested that Plaintiff admit
Plaintiff grabbed Defendant Herrera through the food port door on March 4, 2009. (De
La Torre-Fennell Decl. Ex. B, No. 1.)

•

Defendant Brannum’s Interrogatory No. 10 asks Plaintiff to identify all facts supporting
his response to Defendant Brannum’s Request for Admission No. 2 if his response was
anything other than an unqualified admission. (Decl. De La Torre-Fennell, Ex. A. at No.
10.) Defendant Brannum’s Request for Admission No. 2 requested that Plaintiff admit

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

that Plaintiff’s criminal case based on the events of March 4, 2009, was dismissed in the
interest of justice after Plaintiff entered a nolo contendere plea in Kern County Case No.
DF008802. (De La Torre-Fennell Decl. Ex. A, No. 2.)

1
2
3

•

6

Defendant Brannum’s Interrogatory No. 11 asks Plaintiff to identify all facts supporting
his response to Defendant Brannum’s Request for Admission No. 3 if his response was
anything other than an unqualified admission. (Decl. De La Torre-Fennell, Ex. A. at No.
11.) Defendant Brannum’s Request for Admission No. 3 requested that Plaintiff admit
Defendants did not fabricate evidence against Plaintiff. (Decl. De La Torre-Fennell, Ex.
B. at No. 3.)

7

Defendants also claim that the Court erred in denying various requests for production

4
5

8

made in the motions to compel, but their objections do not list the requests by number or quote

9

them. Defendants summarize their position as “Plaintiff has not clearly identified which

10

documents he believes are responsive to each request as required under the Federal Rules of

11

Civil Procedure.” (ECF No. 188, p. 21).

12

The magistrate judge held a lengthy hearing on these motions to compel and other

13

matters on June 13, 2018. The discovery requests were discussed extensively and Judge

14

Grosjean issued rulings on the record. The following are relevant excerpts of that hearing,

15

including the magistrate judge’s rulings on the issues addressed in Defendants’ objections:

16
17
18
19
20
21

THE COURT: . . . I will go to the -- each of the motions, but my reading of this,
as far as documents, is that Mr. Ransom has produced all the documents he has
related to this case, and nothing that I have seen in the motions to compel or his
answers is suggesting to me that he is withholding any document. I want you to
hear that, of course, defense counsel, because it's relevant to your motions to
compel, but also Mr. Ransom, because of course if that is incorrect, you need to
provide documents. So -MR. RANSOM: I understand, your Honor.

22
23

...

24

THE COURT: . . . Are you withholding any information, facts –

25

MR. RANSOM: I am not, your Honor.

26

THE COURT: -- documents?

27
28

MR. RANSOM: I am not. I'm clear I'm not. I have -- I've given them everything
that they've asked for. I don't know if I've given it to them in the way they want
5

2

me to give it to them, but I've given everything that I have. And just like you
couldn't understand the questions that they were asking, I can't. I'm a layman. I
have no legal training.

3

...

1

4
5
6
7

THE COURT: I'm going to deny defendant Herrera's motion to compel
responses to defendant Herrera's interrogatory requests which was document
146. Based on my review, I find that plaintiff is not withholding information that
I think is properly requested. And I think to the extent that the interrogatories are
in the form of argument regarding listing again evidence that support claims, I
don't think that that is a proper interrogatory.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

And I -- and for example, so that the record is clear, these interrogatories
generally are in the form of, for example, defendant Herrera's interrogatory
number 1 asks plaintiff to state all facts supporting his claim that defendant
Herrera violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. And I also find that the
responses, that the responses, to the extent that there was proper form, did
respond. It did refer to information in the second amended complaint, which is
quite extensive, and I find that there's not information that needs to be withheld.
I also think to the extent that it is list every document in a form that you would
do at trial, it's premature. We're in discovery, and he gets to put together his
actual case and witness list as it comes about.
One other note, you know, certainly if defendants move for summary judgment
and say that there is not information, you know, plaintiff, you are going to then
have to put every – all the information and evidence that you think supports that
claim. And, you know, me and a finding of recommendation but ultimately
Judge O'Neill will have to decide if there is sufficient evidence to allow the
claim to go to a jury. So that's another time that this might happen, but I think
that the information that was given by Mr. Ransom in these interrogatories is
sufficient at this time. So that motion is denied.
...

22

25

THE COURT: Mr. Ransom, are you withholding any facts or information that
you -- that would be responsive to these requests? Meaning you have some other
information, something that happened, something that you saw, some document
that you haven't given to -- to defendants that would be responsive to their
questions?

26

MR. RANSOM: I do not. I am not, your Honor.

23
24

27

...

28
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

THE COURT: Okay. Then I am going to deny defendant Brannum's first
Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant Brannum's First Set of Interrogatory
Requests, which is document 159, largely for the same reasons as I mentioned in
defendant Herrera. Again, that I don't find any facts or information are being
withheld, rather these interrogatories are in terms of argument regarding lining
up and listing every piece of evidence that might relate to a single claim.
I appreciate Ms. De La Torre-Fennell saying that whereas the one that was
mentioned for defendant Herrera was basically all facts in support of your claim,
this one, the interrogatories are more targeted to specific parts of the claim. But
those are still in terms of argument about lining up evidence already given and
which way it has to do with certain claims. And I don't think that that type of
argument is proper for interrogatories.
This is also informed by -- these are interrelated claims, and I'll say they're not
easy. This -- the background of this case, as you all know, is this went through
several amended complaints, several screening orders, a motion to dismiss that
when -- that I had findings and recommendations that went to Judge O'Neill,
another -- another amended complaint, a screening order that did go to Judge
O'Neill, and then Judge O'Neill has ultimately found that the way that those
claims -- that the facts did support if true certain claims.
They are not easy, and I think asking for, especially in this case, asking for
plaintiff to have to divide up which of the pieces of evidence have to do, for
example, with a malicious prosecution claim versus a due process claim, these
are legal issues that obviously if we go to trial he's going to have to do. But in
terms of an interrogatory, it really is in the form of asking for legal argument,
and that's why in this specific instance I'll deny the motion.
I say that because, to the extent that you've represented, these are standard
questions, I'm not holding that these will always be improper questions.
Sometimes it isn't clear from the face of the complaint what is happening at all,
and so I understand why your office might serve these. But in context of this
case and all that has happened and all of the briefing and the second amended
complaint, I think that these are improper in this case, and -- or put another way,
that plaintiff's responses are adequate, and so I'm going to deny the motion to
compel on that basis.

24

...

25

The next motion before me is Defendants' Motion to Compel Further Responses
to Defendants' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Let me give
you my take on this. I do think, as I stated earlier, that most of these requests are
not truly requests for production, meaning they're not asking to produce all
documents, and it's my understanding that all documents have been produced.
Rather, the issue is that the request for production asks for plaintiff to state

26
27
28

7

which documents do or do not relate to certain claims. That's not proper for a
request for production in any event. That would be to the extent it is acceptable
in an interrogatory.

1
2
3

Also I find not only that Mr. Ransom has produced documents, he actually has
attempted to comply with defendants' requests and listed a number of
documents. The only issue in my mind is that defendants would like plaintiff to
say "and that's all the evidence that I have." And plaintiff isn't doing that. I think
that's okay for the reasons I stated before. We're still in discovery. He doesn't
need to close off what evidence that he's going to bring, as long as he's not
withholding any. He may have to do so in opposition to summary judgment. He
may have to do so at trial, but he doesn't necessarily have to say every piece of
evidence that supports every piece of claim at this time.

4
5
6
7
8
9

(ECF No. 186).
Regarding Request for Admission Number 2, the Court asked clarifying questions on

10
11

the record regarding Mr. Ransom’s response and also set forth a procedure for obtaining

12

additional information. (ECF No. 186, pgs. 31-35) (“”THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I

13

understand. So you took a nolo contendere plea in Kern County court case DF8802. And after

14

that, the criminal case, a different criminal case that was based on the events of March 4, 2009,

15

was dismissed in the interest of justice; is that true? MR. RANSOM: Yes.”).

16
17

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when reviewing a magistrate judge's

18

order, “[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside

19

any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” See also 28 U.S.C. §

20

636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 303. Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, a district court

21

may overturn a magistrate judge's ruling “‘only if the district court is left with the definite and

22

firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group,

23

Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 980, 983 (S.D.Cal.1999) (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co.,

24

Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.1997)). Under the contrary to law standard, a district court

25

may conduct independent review of purely legal determinations by a magistrate judge. Id.

26

“Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties

27

may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim

28

or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
8

1

stake in the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information,

2

the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the

3

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

26(b)(1).

5

“Broad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and its

6

decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of

7

discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” Sablan v.

8

Dep't of Fin. of Com. of N. Mariana Islands, 856 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation and

9

internal quotation marks omitted); Hallett v. Morgan 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). “On

10

motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise

11

allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is

12

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

13

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, and

14
15

employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination

16

of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

17
18
19
20

III.

DISCUSSION
With these legal principles in mind, this Court finds that the magistrate judge’s

decisions were not contrary to law or clearly erroneous.
As an initial matter, there are more than 15 separate requests asking Plaintiff to state

21

which facts and evidence support which claims. The sheer number of requests suggests at the

22

outset that Defendants have not been mindful of pursuing discovery in a way that secures the

23

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination in every proceeding, and in avoiding burdensome

24

and cumulative discovery.

25

Moreover, the magistrate judge confirmed that Plaintiff was not withholding any

26

documents or facts from Defendants. This is not a case where the magistrate judge is allowing

27

a Plaintiff to withhold information relevant to the lawsuit.

28

The issue, as the magistrate judge discussed extensively on the record, is to what extent
9

1

Plaintiff should be compelled to state which pieces of evidence support which legal claims.

2

While phrased in a factual way, the information sought was more akin to a legal argument. In

3

other words, Defendants already have all of the underlying facts and documents, but wish

4

Plaintiff to take a legal position regarding which pieces of evidence correspond to which claim.

5

It is within the magistrate judge’s discretion to decline to compel Plaintiff to take such legal

6

positions. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County; 235 F.R.D. 675, 683 (E.D.

7

Cal. 2006) (denying motion to compel as to an interrogatory because “[t]he court finds

8

defendant's objection that the interrogatory requires defendant to provide a legal interpretation

9

of the word ‘purpose’ is well-taken and appears to be the main issue in dispute in this action”);

10

People of State of Cal. v. The Jules Fribourg, 19 F.R.D. 432, 436 (N.D. Cal. 1955) (“Although

11

the cases do not entirely agree on what matters are ‘facts’ and thus proper subjects of requests

12

for admission, and what matters are ‘conclusion and opinion’ and therefore improper, there is

13

general agreement that requests for admission are not to be treated as substitutes

14

for discovery processes to uncover evidence, and that they may not be applied to

15

controverted legal issues lying at the heart of the case.”).

16

The burden involved in responding to such questions, especially by an unrepresented

17

confined individual, is especially high in the context of this case. As the magistrate judge

18

discussed, although the facts of this case appear relatively straightforward, i.e., allegedly false

19

allegations leading to a criminal charge and associated consequences, the law is anything but.

20

There were multiple orders in the screening/motion to dismiss stage of the case, over multiple

21

years, before the current claims were allowed to proceed. Those claims -- a Fourteenth

22

Amendment procedural due process claim, a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim

23

under Devereaux, a retaliation claim,a section 1983 malicious prosecution claim, and a conspiracy

24

claim -- involve complicated questions of constitutional law informed by case law. Asking a

25

Plaintiff to state which facts support which of these legal claims involves legal questions that

26

go beyond the bounds of ordinary discovery.

27
28

It also appears that Defendants have other mechanisms to obtain the information they
seek. In this case, the magistrate judge ordered initial disclosures by all parties. (ECF No. 79).
10

1

Defendants have also taken the deposition of Plaintiff, and will depose him again shortly (ECF

2

No. 193). And, again, Defendants have the benefit of lengthy briefing regarding which

3

allegations give rise to which potential claims.
In light of the volume of the requests, the parties’ relative access to the information, the

4
5

parties’ resources, the burden of responding, and the legal nature underlying the requests, the

6

magistrate judge’s decisions denying Defendants’ motions to compel were not contrary to law

7

or clearly erroneous.

8
9
10
11

Finally, the magistrate judge adequately addressed the interrogatory related to
Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission number 2 by having Plaintiff clarify his response
on the record.
IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

12

For the foregoing reasons, the magistrate judge’s discovery orders issued June 14, 2018

13

(ECF No. 173), are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and Defendants’ objections (ECF

14

No. 188) are OVERRULED.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

August 23, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11