Furnace v. Vasquez

Filing 21

ORDER regarding 20 Motion / Request for Clarification signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/26/2013. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD FURNACE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
L. VASQUEZ,

15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11cv02034 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICAITON
(Document 20)

Plaintiff Edward Furnace (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department

18

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

19

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20
21

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action on December 9, 2011. On October 10, 2012, the Court ordered that

22

the action proceed on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Vasquez for violation of the First and

23

Fourteenth Amendments.

24

Defendant filed an answer on July 22, 2013.

25

On July 24, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Part I of the Order

26

requires the parties to provide initial disclosures, including names of witnesses and production of

27

documents.

28
1

1
2

On August 13, 2013, Defendant filed a request for clarification from the Magistrate Judge of
the requirements of Part I of the Order.

3

DISCUSSION

4
5
6
7
8
9

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the discovery order at issue, which has been used and
upheld in other actions in this Court, was implemented in light of the numerous discovery issues that
were arising with increasing frequency in other pro se prisoner actions. Discovery practices were
bordering on unnecessarily obstructive, and these tactics caused numerous discovery disputes that
required extensive Court resources to resolve. The intent of the order is to discourage similar wasteful
activities.

10
11
12
13
14

At the same time, the Court recognizes that this is a change in how prisoner cases are handled
and appreciates the parties’ attempts at cooperation. Nonetheless, most of the issues raised in this
Request for Clarification have been asked and answered numerous times in the context of prior
Motions for Reconsideration in other actions.
A.

15

Documents and Information to be Disclosed is Limited to Discoverable Information
Defendant requests that the “documents and information to be disclosed [be] limited to

16

discoverable information.” Mot. 2. As has been previously explained, while the order may not

17

specifically state that disclosures are limited to “discoverable information,” the context of the order, as

18

well as common sense, dictate that only discoverable information need be exchanged.

19

Indeed, the order limits Defendant’s disclosures to information regarding individuals “likely to

20

have information about Defendant(s)’ claims or defenses, or who will be used to support

21

Defendant(s)’ version of the events described in the complaint.” July 24, 2013, Order at 2. That the

22

language doesn’t track the “may be used to support its claims or defenses” language used in Rule

23
24

26(a)(1)(A) does not alter the basic tenants of discovery.
B.

Definition Used in Allen v. Woodford is Applicable

25

Next, Defendant questions the order’s requirement that Defendant provide Plaintiff with

26

“copies of all documents and other materials in the care, custody or control of any Defendant(s) or the

27

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation…” July 24, 2013, Order at 2. Defendant

28
2

1
2
3

requests that the documents be limited to documents that fall within the definition used in Allen v.
Woodford, 2007 WL 309945 (E.D. Cal 2007) and which Defendant has the legal right to demand and
obtain in the course of employment.

4
5
6

The order specifically cites the definition used in Allen as applicable to Defendant’s
production obligation, making clarification unnecessary. In any event, as the Court has explained in
prior orders, the Allen standard requires no more than production of information for which Defendant

7

as “the legal right to obtain” on demand. If a document does not fall within the definition of Allen, it

8

need not be produced. Certainly, Defendant will not have “possession, custody or control” of all of

9

CDCR’s documents. The order does not require Defendant to produce documents that she cannot

10
11

otherwise obtain in the course of her employment.
C.

Production of Grievances and Appeals Thereof is Governed by Rule 26(b)(1)

12
13
14

Finally, Defendant requests that only grievances and related appeals, as well as the
determination of those grievances and appeals, related to the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint be
produced.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Again, the discovery order does not alter the basic rules of discovery that only discoverable
information need be produced. The definition set forth in Rule 26(b)(1) remains applicable. Of
course, the specific facts of each case will determine the scope of discoverable grievances and appeals,
and the Court will not create a blanket rule limiting discovery of such documents to the issues raised in
the complaint. Nonetheless, the parties should remain guided by Rule 26(b)(1) in determining what
documents to produce.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:

24

/s/ Dennis

August 26, 2013

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

25

L. Beck

3b142a

26
27
28
3