Eric Wheeler v. Aliceson et al

Filing 84

ORDER re Motions 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 59 , 60 , 66 , 65 , 67 , 69 , 76 , 77 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/2/15. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ERIC WHEELER, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 1:12-cv-00860-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER: v. K. ALICESON, et al., Defendants. (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (ECF No. 46); (2) DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO RETURN PLAINTIFF’S NOVEMBER 26, 2014 DECLARATION TO PLAINTIFF; (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRESEVE EVIDENCE (ECF No. 44); (4) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF Nos. 43 and 69); (5) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (ECF No. 67); (6) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM (ECF Nos. 45, 59, and 60); (7) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER REGARDING COPIES (ECF No. 48); (8) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER REGARDING REVIEW OF CENTRAL FILE (ECF No. 52); 1 (9) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND PLEADINGS (ECF No. 47); 2 3 (10) GRANTING MOTIONS TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF (ECF Nos. 65 and 67); 4 5 (11) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 77); 6 7 (12) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS (ECF No. 76); AND 8 9 (13) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR STATUS (ECF No. 66 and 82). 10 11 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL 12 13 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 15 AUGUST 14, 2015 DISCOVERY CUTOFF 16 SEPTEMBER 4, 2015 DEADLINE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 18 19 20 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 22 rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.) The action 23 proceeds against Defendants Garcia, Goss, Trevino, Isira, and Coffin on Plaintiff’s First 24 Amendment retaliation claim, and against Defendant Isira on Plaintiff’s Eighth 25 Amendment medical indifference and state law negligence claims. 26 This order addresses the following motions: 27 On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his 28 request for production of documents, set one. (ECF No. 43.) Defendants filed an 2 1 opposition. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 56.) 2 On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte Motion for a Court Order 3 Prohibiting Defendant Garcia’s Removal, Destruction, and/or Concealing Essential 4 Evidence” and a request that certain information be submitted to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 44.) 5 Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 58.) 6 Also on December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. 7 (ECF No. 45.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF 8 No. 55.) 9 Also on December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to seal documents and for a 10 protective order. (ECF No. 46.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff 11 filed a reply. (ECF No. 57.) 12 On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an 13 amended complaint. (ECF No. 47.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 53.) 14 Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 61.) 15 On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing 16 Defendants to copy documents for him. (ECF No. 48.) Defendants filed a response. 17 (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff filed no reply. 18 On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order requiring 19 Defendants to make his central file available for review for a reasonable amount of time. 20 (ECF No. 52.) Defendants filed no opposition. 21 On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. 22 (ECF No. 59.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 63.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF 23 No. 64.) 24 On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. (ECF 25 No. 60.) Defendants filed no opposition. 26 On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery cut-off by sixty 27 days. (ECF No. 65.) Defendants filed no opposition. 28 On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the status of his motions. 3 1 (ECF No. 66.) Defendants filed no opposition. 2 On February 9, 2015, Defendants moved to (1) compel Plaintiff’s response to 3 deposition questions, (2) compel Plaintiff to produce documents, and (3) modify the 4 discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 5 71.) Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 72.) 6 On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a further response to his 7 requests for production of documents, sets one and three. (ECF No. 69.) Defendants 8 filed an opposition. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 73.) 9 On April 20, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 10 74.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 81.) The motion for summary judgment is not 11 fully briefed and is not addressed herein. 12 On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of an expert 13 witness. (ECF No. 76.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff filed a 14 reply. (ECF No. 80.) 15 On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day extension of time to 16 oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 77.) Defendants filed no 17 opposition. 18 On May 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a letter complainING that his motions had not 19 been ruled on. (ECF No. 82.) 20 These matters are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 21 II. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 22 Plaintiff currently is housed at Mule Creek State Prison but complains of acts that 23 occurred at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, 24 California. The relevant allegations in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint may be 25 summarized essentially as follows: 26 Plaintiff suffers from depression, post-traumatic stress, and anxiety. 27 From June 7, 2010 to January 19, 2011 and from March 24, 2011 to June 15, 28 2011, he was housed in the Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”) portion of Facility G4 1 1. On January 19, 2011, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with another inmate, 2 resulting in the use of force against Plaintiff by correctional officers and Plaintiff’s 3 placement in Administrative Segregation. Plaintiff filed administrative grievances 4 regarding this incident and other conduct by Facility G-1 staff. 5 During May and June of 2011, Plaintiff observed staff misconduct on the part of 6 Defendants, including improper utilization of computer resources. Plaintiff wrote a letter 7 to the Warden detailing violations of CDCR standards. 8 Defendants Garcia, Goss, and Trevino retaliated against Plaintiff for his 9 administrative grievances and letter to the Warden. They made false entries in his file 10 and chronos. Plaintiff also was transferred to non-EOP housing in an overcrowded gym 11 where his mental health condition could not be effectively treated or accommodated. 12 Garcia falsely accused Plaintiff of overfamiliarity, stalking females, and threatening 13 behavior. These accusations led to a rules violation proceeding in which Plaintiff was 14 found not guilty. Plaintiff claims Defendant Coffin was aware of this retaliation and failed 15 to protect Plaintiff. 16 Defendant Isira, in concert with the other Defendants, also retaliated against 17 Plaintiff by intentionally falsifying medical records, misdiagnosing Plaintiff as not 18 suffering from a substantiated mental health disorder, providing unacceptable mental 19 health care, and terminating Plaintiff’s EOP level of care, resulting in Plaintiff being 20 housed in the gym. 21 Four months later, Plaintiff was examined by a non-party mental health provider 22 who correctly diagnosed his mental health conditions and transferred Plaintiff back to 23 the EOP level of care. 24 III. MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 25 A. 26 The majority of Plaintiff’s motions discussed herein cannot be understood without Basis for Plaintiff’s Motion 27 28 5 1 a brief overview of his theories against Defendant Garcia.1 According to Plaintiff, 2 Defendant Garcia engaged in overfamiliarity with inmates throughout her time at 3 CSATF. This overfamiliarity extended to Plaintiff. Plaintiff witnessed her overfamiliarity 4 with other inmates and viewed highly personal items and photographs belonging to 5 Garcia and other inmates in Garcia’s office. Plaintiff apparently believes Defendant 6 Garcia retaliated against him in part because he was aware of her overfamiliarity with 7 inmates. Plaintiff himself was found not guilty of overfamiliarity on a rules violation report 8 initiated by Defendant Garcia. He believes the not guilty finding supports his theory that 9 the rules violation report and Garcia’s other conduct was retaliatory. 10 B. Arguments 11 Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal and for a protective order (ECF No. 12 46) seeks to file under seal his own declaration describing Defendant Garcia’s “personal 13 activities” during the workday, as well as personal information including her prior home 14 address. He contends that his knowledge of this information is relevant to establish why 15 Defendant Garcia retaliated against him, why he was denied treatment, and why he was 16 removed from the EOP program. He appears to contend that, if Defendant Garcia was 17 aware of the extent of Plaintiff’s knowledge of her activities, she would destroy 18 evidence, specifically items given to her by inmates when she worked at CSATF. 19 Additionally, Plaintiff claims the information is relevant to impeach Defendant Garcia. He 20 believes the declaration he wishes to seal supports granting his other motions, 21 discussed below. Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 22 23 how disclosure of the declaration would be used for improper purposes, and the 24 declaration otherwise would be discoverable. (ECF No. 49.) They contend that, because 25 Plaintiff’s numerous other filings have made clear his intent to utilize items given to 26 Defendant Garcia by inmates as evidence, this intention is no longer secret, and the 27 28 The basis for Plaintiff’s motion and his claims against Defendant Garcia may be gleaned from his multiple filings in the public record. Discussion of these claims does not require disclosure of material in the document Plaintiff wishes to seal. 1 6 1 sealing of his declaration would accomplish no useful purpose. Although Defendants 2 agree that Garcia’s home address should not be made public, they contend that it need 3 not be included in Plaintiff’s declaration, or alternatively could be redacted. They also 4 ask that Plaintiff be ordered to provide an unredacted copy of his declaration to defense 5 counsel. 6 In reply, Plaintiff maintains that sealing is warranted to protect Defendant Garcia 7 due to the personal nature of the information contained in the declaration. (ECF No. 57.) 8 He argues that the declaration should not be given to defense counsel because doing 9 so would allow Defendant Garcia to “cover-up her wrong doing” and, in any event, 10 defense counsel is not entitled to know the “defense strategies” that Plaintiff may or may 11 not use in this case. 12 C. Ruling 13 Filings in cases such as this are a matter of public record absent compelling 14 justification. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008). “Unless 15 a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of 16 access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 17 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 18 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong 19 presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for 20 sealing that outweigh the historical right of access and the public policies favoring 21 disclosure. See id. at 1178-79. 22 The Ninth Circuit has determined that the public's interest in non-dispositive 23 motions is relatively lower than its interest in trial or a dispositive motion. Accordingly, a 24 party seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only 25 demonstrate “good cause” to justify sealing. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 26 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying “good cause” standard to all non-dispositive motions 27 because such motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 28 underlying cause of action”). “The party seeking protection bears the burden of showing 7 1 specific prejudice or harm will result if no [protection] is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Estates 2 of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). That party must 3 make a “particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual document.” 4 San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 5 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples 6 or articulated reasoning” are insufficient. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 7 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 8 (3rd Cir. 1986)). 9 Plaintiff’s belief that Defendant Garcia will destroy evidence if she is aware of the 10 extent of Plaintiff’s knowledge of her activities is an insufficient basis to seal Plaintiff’s 11 declaration. This contention appears to be based purely on speculation and is not 12 supported by specific examples or articulated reasoning. Additionally, Plaintiff has made 13 clear, through numerous filings in the public record, his intent to seek evidence of items 14 given to Garcia by inmates. The more detailed and salacious allegations in Plaintiff’s 15 declaration do not provide evidence that Garcia intends to destroy evidence. Indeed, 16 and as discussed further below, it appears the evidence Plaintiff seeks was discarded 17 by Defendant Garcia prior to her becoming aware of the instant litigation. 18 The parties are in agreement that Defendant Garcia’s home address should not 19 be made public. However, the Court sees no reason why Garcia’s home address – or 20 Plaintiff’s knowledge of that address – is relevant to resolution of Plaintiff’s non21 dispositive motions. Further, to the extent it may be relevant that Plaintiff knows 22 Defendant Garcia’s home address, Plaintiff may establish his knowledge through his 23 own declaration without specifically stating the address. 24 Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant is not entitled to information 25 regarding Plaintiff’s litigation strategy is not entirely correct. Federal court is not a forum 26 in which disputes are resolved through the element of surprise. The purpose of 27 discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s buff and more a fair contest with 28 the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” U.S. v. Procter & 8 1 Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958). Just as Plaintiff may seek discovery of relevant, 2 nonprivileged information from Defendants, so too may Defendants seek such 3 information from Plaintiff. 4 Lastly, the Court cannot serve as a repository for the parties’ evidence (e.g., 5 prison or medical records, affidavits, declarations, etc.). The parties may not file 6 evidence with the Court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question 7 (for example, on a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by the 8 Court). Although Plaintiff contends the declaration is relevant to his pending non9 dispositive motions, it appears he wishes to use the declaration to support his claim on 10 the merits. If this is the case, Plaintiff must submit his evidence in opposition to 11 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal and for a protective order (ECF No. 46) will 13 be denied. Plaintiff’s declaration will be returned to him. If Defendants wish, they may 14 seek a copy of the declaration through discovery in the time frame set out below. 15 IV. MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE 16 On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte Motion for a Court Order 17 Prohibiting Defendant Garcia’s Removal, Destruction, and/or Concealing Essential 18 Evidence” and a request that certain “evidence” be provided to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 44.) 19 Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to prohibit Defendant Garcia from destroying art, greeting 20 cards, drawings, poems, and letters given to her by inmates at CSATF from 2010 to 21 2012. Plaintiff states that this evidence is necessary to impeach Defendant Garcia and 22 to establish her history of misconduct and overfamiliarity with inmates. He contends that 23 Defendant Garcia will destroy this evidence or remove it from her current office at 24 California State Prison—Los Angeles (“CSP-LAC”), in Lancaster, California, if she is 25 aware that Plaintiff seeks it. He also asks that Defendant Garcia be required to submit 26 such items to her attorney for copies to be made and provided to Plaintiff. 27 Defendants oppose the motion on the ground Plaintiff made no showing that 28 Defendant Garcia is in possession of such items or likely to destroy them. By way of 9 1 offer of proof, Defendant Garcia states that she stopped working at CSATF on May 10, 2 2013, and disposed of the items given to her by CSATF inmates at that time. Although 3 she is prepared to testify regarding any items given to her, those items are no longer in 4 her possession, custody, or control. If she were in possession of the items, she would 5 provide them to Plaintiff in response to a proper discovery request, and would not 6 destroy them. The request that Plaintiff be provided copies of the items circumvents the 7 discovery process. In reply, Plaintiff states that he is not seeking immediate production of the 8 9 disputed items, but will pursue them in the course of discovery. He states that the items 10 are still in Defendant’s possession, custody or control. Defendant Garcia states that the items at issue were disposed of in 2013.2 11 12 Plaintiff offers no proof to substantiate his assertion that the items remain in Garcia’s 13 possession, custody, or control. In light of Defendant Garcia’s destruction of the items, 14 Plaintiff’s request to preserve them appears to be moot. In any event, even if not moot, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. The motion is 15 16 properly treated as a motion seeking an order to preserve evidence. “Federal courts 17 have the implied or inherent power to issue preservation orders as part of their general 18 authority ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious 19 disposition of cases.’” American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1071 20 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135-36 21 (2004)). Courts have articulated different tests for determining entitlement to a 22 preservation order but under either standard, Plaintiff fails to make the requisite showing 23 24 25 26 27 28 “A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has some notice that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed.” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp.,464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant Garcia waived service in this action on June 5, 2014, (ECF No. 34) and there is no indication she otherwise was aware these documents were potentially relevant to litigation when they were destroyed, on or around May 10, 2013. Additionally, it would appear the items have minimal, if any relevance to this action. Defendant Garcia is not being sued for misconduct or overfamiliarity with inmates, but for retaliation. Although items indicating Defendant Garcia engaged in overfamiliarity with inmates would suggest that Plaintiff’s purported complaints against her were true, such items do not necessarily establish that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff because of his complaints. In other words, Plaintiff may prove his case whether or not his administrative complaints against Defendant Garcia had merit. 2 10 1 of necessity. Id. at 1072 (discussing two standards for determining entitlement to 2 preservation order). However, Plaintiff’s motion is not premised on any showing that 3 relevant and existing evidence is in danger of being destroyed, but on his unsupported 4 belief that Defendant Garcia will destroy evidence. Plaintiff has not shown that a 5 preservation order is needed due to any actual risk that specific evidence will be lost or 6 destroyed during the pendency of this action. Id. Generalized, unsupported concerns 7 simply do not suffice. Id. 8 Furthermore, Defendants have a duty to preserve evidence. “A party’s 9 destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has some notice that the 10 documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed,” Leon, 11 464 F.3d at 959 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A federal trial court has 12 the inherent discretionary power to make appropriate evidentiary rulings in response to 13 the destruction or spoliation of relevant evidence.” Med. Lab. Mgmt. Consultants v. Am. 14 Broad. Cos., Inc., 306 F.3d 806, 824 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and 15 citation omitted). The duty to preserve evidence, “backed by the court’s inherent power 16 to impose sanctions for the destruction of such evidence, is sufficient in most cases to 17 secure the preservation of relevant evidence.” Young v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:10-cv18 03579-JF/PVT, 2010 WL 3564847, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (citing Leon, 464 19 F.3d at 959). To the extent any of the items at issue remain in Defendant Garcia’s 20 possession, custody or control, Defendants’ duty and the Court’s inherent powers are 21 sufficient to ensure the preservation of this evidence without further court order. 22 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for preservation of evidence will be 23 denied. 24 V. MOTIONS TO COMPEL 25 A. 26 The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea, Legal Standard 27 Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir.1981). Parties may obtain 28 discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 11 1 defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to 2 the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information 3 need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to 4 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party 5 6 moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not 7 justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P., 2012 WL 113799, at *1 8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS (PC), 2008 WL 9 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the 10 Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each 11 disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding 12 party's objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. 13 Virga, No. CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 14 2011). The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs 15 16 its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance, the determination 17 whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or defenses 18 depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory 19 Committee’s note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1)). B. 20 Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel 1. 21 December 2, 2014 Motion On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to his 22 23 Request for Production of Documents, Set No. 1. (ECF No. 43.) Having considered the 24 motion, Defendants’ opposition (ECF No. 54), Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 56),3 and the 25 relevant discovery requests and responses, the Court rules as follows. Because 26 resolution of Plaintiff’s first request requires some understanding of his remaining 27 28 As with many of Plaintiff’s submissions, his 48-page reply attempts to address his claims on the merits, rather than responding to the discovery issues presented in his motion. These contentions are not properly raised and will not be addressed. 3 12 1 requests, his first request will be addressed last. a. 2 Request Nos. 1 (#2)4, and 2 3 Request: 4 In Request No. 1(#2), Plaintiff sought: 5 All documents, including electronically stored information, deleted files, deleted matter, deleted information from computers, servers, printers, faxes of Rocio D. Garcia, M.S.W., located with in the workplace, work area, office(s) of Facility G, G-1 EOP Housing Unit, Section A, Garcia’s workplace computer server, printer, which sats [sic] right next to office glass window, next to office door, or first computer on individual’s right, as the individual steps thru office door, located in G-1 Building, section A, office of L. Goss, R. Garcia, including 2. All documents, web pages, web sites, maps from January 1, 2011 thru July 31, 2011, and from June, 2012, thru March 30, 2013. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Request No. 2 is nearly identical to Request No. 1(#2), but pertains to Defendant 12 13 Goss, rather than Defendant Garcia. The request also identifies a different location for 14 Defendant’s printer, and specifies a slightly different date range. 15 Response: 16 Defendants responded to both requests as follows: 17 Objection. The request is overbroad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in that the request includes all electronically stored information, deleted files, deleted matter, and deleted information from the responding party’s computer, regardless whether the documents pertain to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s claim. The request further is unduly burdensome and potentially invades the privacy of the other inmates, as well as the responding parties. The request also potentially includes personnel information concerning the responding party, which are subject to the qualified privilege of official information and a federal common law privilege. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1991). Personnel files are also protected by the privacy rights of staff, including federal common law and applicable California statutes including Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8, Government Code section 6254 and Civil Code sections 1798.24 and 1798.40 and California Code of Regulations Title 15, section 3400. Personnel files also are protected under California Evidence Code sections 1040, et. seq., including section 1043. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Plaintiff apparently propounded two Requests No. 1. 13 1 Arguments: 2 Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ response constitutes an insufficient boilerplate 3 objection. Plaintiff’s attempts to clarify his request, stating that he is not requesting other 4 inmates’ medical or mental health files, but rather deleted information regarding the 5 Defendants’ web searches, documents or information pertaining to Plaintiff, and 6 documents or information (including personnel information) pertaining to Defendants. 7 Plaintiff is not requesting what he characterizes as “personal information,” which, to 8 Plaintiff, means date of birth, social security number, tax information, and names of 9 relatives. He contends Defendants have no right of privacy in state owned computer 10 resources or deleted files. He further claims that the requested information is relevant to 11 prove Defendants’ misconduct, the constitutional violations at issue, to impeach 12 Defendants’ credibility, and to demonstrate bias. Defendants maintain that the request is overbroad because it seeks information 13 14 unrelated to Plaintiff or this action. They state that they have produced all e-mails 15 generated by Defendants and relating to Plaintiff, and that any documents potentially 16 reflecting bias therefore have been disclosed. Any further electronic information would 17 not pertain to Plaintiff or his care, would not be relevant, and would violate the privacy of 18 other inmates. They further contend that the request is overbroad as to time because it 19 includes documents generated long before Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct, and 20 long after the alleged retaliation.5 Finally, Defendants contend that the computers used 21 by Defendants Garcia and Goss have been replaced and cannot be retrieved. Data 22 maintained on the proxy server for the relevant period is no longer backed up and 23 cannot be made available unless it can be restored. Restoring the data would cost 24 approximately $20,000. 25 26 5 They also contend that Plaintiff’s letter to the Warden did not address the conduct of these Defendants, 27 but other personnel. Plaintiff vigorously disputes this assertion. The Court cannot resolve this dispute at this stage of the proceedings and, in any event, doing so is not necessary to resolve Plaintiff’s motion to 28 compel. 14 1 Ruling: 2 Plaintiff’s request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Requiring Defendants to 3 comply with the request would permit Plaintiff to engage in an improper “fishing 4 expedition.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004). The question of 5 whether Defendants Garcia and Goss improperly viewed websites for personal use 6 during work hours has minimal relevance to this action, which proceeds against them 7 only on Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation. Defendants have produced paper copies of e-mail 8 correspondence relating to Plaintiff, which would appear to be the only relevant 9 information contained in Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff specifies no other relevant 10 documents. He provides no basis for assuming that “deleted documents” exist. 11 Discovery in this action does not provide a basis for Plaintiff to rifle through Defendants’ 12 computers or the proxy servers of the California Department of Corrections and 13 Rehabilitation. Defendants will not be required to provide a further response to this 14 request. b. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Request No. 3 Request: All documents, including electronically stored information, deleted Files, deleted matter, deleted information from computers, servers, printers, faxes used by Abdul Isira, Phy., located within the workplace, work area, office(s) (1.) That Adbul Isira used in November, December, 2012 at SATF S.P. (2.) The E. Facility Clinic office used by mental Health Staff, and any other E facility office used by mental health in July, 2011, thru November, 2011, and September 2013, thru January 31, 2013 (3.) Any other office, computer, fax, server used by A. Isira on any SATF Facility, including C.T.I. in October, November, December, 2012, and January, 2013, including any documents authored by A. Isira that was scanned and printed out by L. Maravilla, LCSW in E Clinic Mental Health office, E Facility, SATF S.P. in September, October, November, December, 2012, and January, February, 2013. Response: 26 Defendants objected on the same grounds presented in response to Request 27 Nos. 1(#2) and 2. 28 15 1 Arguments: 2 Plaintiff’s arguments concerning this request are largely the same as his prior 3 arguments. However, Plaintiff further specifies that he seeks information concerning a 4 chrono written by Defendant Isira that allegedly was altered by Defendant Isira on 5 December 4, 2012. 6 Defendants respond that the alleged retaliation by Defendant Isira occurred in 7 2011 and documents from 2012 will not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 In reply, Plaintiff attempts to explain further his basis for believing Defendant Isira 9 altered chronos. 10 Ruling: 11 The Court is unable to discern the basis for Plaintiff’s belief that Defendant Isira 12 altered chronos. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that chronos authored by 13 Defendant Isira in 2011 would appear to be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Alterations or 14 edits to the 2011 chronos, even after the date of the alleged retaliation, also could 15 potentially be relevant. Accordingly, Defendants will be ordered to conduct a diligent 16 search of their records and to provide Plaintiff with copies of any and all chronos 17 concerning Plaintiff and authored by Defendant Isira in 2011, including any later-edited 18 or altered versions of those same chronos. Defendants shall file a notice of compliance 19 in the record. To the extent Defendants believe any such chronos are too sensitive to be 20 released to Plaintiff, they may seek relief from this order by filing the chronos for in 21 camera review. 22 The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to this request 23 will be denied on the same grounds stated with respect to Request Nos. 1(#2) and 2. c. 24 25 26 27 28 Request No. 4 Request: All requested documents, information by plaintiff is in the name(s) of Eric Wheeler and all/each of the individual named defendants as each authored any type document/information directly pertaining to Eric Wheeler in 2011, 2012 and 2013, in C Facility Mental Health offices, 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Soars, Phy., Vickers, Phy. (4.) all documents including electronically stored information, deleted files, deleted matter, deleted information from SATF S.P. Records office of persons, defendants obtaining access to, checking out, reviewing Eric Wheeler’s, E-82064, Central (C-File) File in December 2010, January thru August 2011 and October 1; [sic] 2011, thru December 30, 2011, June 1, 2012, thru December 30, 2012, January 1, 2013, thru March 28, 2013, and November 1, 2013, thru February 27, 2014. Response: Objection. The request is overbroad as to time and unduly burdensome. The request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “Soars, Phy., Vickers, Phy. (4.).” The request improperly seeks discovery from a non-party. To the extent that the requested information is contained in Plaintiff’s medical files, the request is unduly burdensome because it calls for the production of documents equally available to the propounding party. 11 12 13 14 Without waiving these objections, the responding parties state: the responding parties will produce all electronic documents generated by the Defendants concerning Plaintiff. (Attachment 1.) The responding parties also will produce documentation concerning access to Plaintiff’s Central File. (Attachment 2.) 15 Arguments: 16 Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ objections constitute impermissible 17 boilerplate. He complains that Defendants did not have deleted information retrieved by 18 computer technicians and therefore did not produce any deleted documents. He states 19 that Soars and Vickers are Mental Health Supervisors. He states that he is not seeking 20 information from his medical file. He appears to seek a May 31, 2012 chrono authored 21 by Vickers. He appears to also seek an “Administration Records Office Log (sign in/sign 22 out)” of Plaintiff’s C-File. 23 Defendants argue that the request is overbroad because it refers to dates well 24 beyond the events at issue in this case, which took place in 2011. With respect to the 25 disputed chrono, they state that Plaintiff’s claim to have reviewed it indicates it is 26 contained in his medical file. To the extent Plaintiff is being untruthful and the chrono is 27 not in Plaintiff’s medical file, it contains sensitive information that should not be released 28 to Plaintiff. Defendants offer to submit the chrono for in camera review, along with a 17 1 declaration from a licensed mental health care professional explaining why the 2 document should not be released. Finally, Defendants contend that they have produced 3 the requested information reflecting who accessed Plaintiff’s Central File. 4 Plaintiff responds that he has seen the disputed chrono and it is not marked 5 “confidential.” Plaintiff disputes aspects of the chrono and argues that it displays bias on 6 the part of non-party Vickers. 7 Ruling: 8 Plaintiff’s request is unintelligible. In the Court’s view, Defendants exceeded their 9 discovery obligations by producing documents in response to this request. Defendant 10 will not be required to provide a further response to this request. 11 To the extent Plaintiff intended in this request to obtain specific documents or 12 information (such as specific chronos or logs), his request was not so worded. If Plaintiff 13 wishes, he may request specific chronos or logs within the extended discovery time 14 frame discussed below. Plaintiff’s request for the disputed Vickers chrono is discussed 15 below in relation to his February 9, 2015 motion to compel a further response to 16 Request No. 9, Set 1. d. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Request No. 1 Request: Request(s) includes all encrypted passwords-protected [electronically stored information (“ESI”)] (a) for any ESI that exists in encrypted format or is password protected, the producing party will provide the propounding party a means to gain access to those native files (by supplying password(s) etc.). (b.) The producing party will translate any data compilations/ESI included in the demand into reasonably useable form, in paper, in plain readable English. Response: 24 25 26 27 28 Objection. The seeks [sic] information that is deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Without waiving these objections, the responding parties will provide paper copies of any documents produced in response to these requests. Arguments: Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ claim of privilege constitutes an insufficient boilerplate objection. He contends that he did not request paper documents but electronically stored information. Defendants respond that Plaintiff is prohibited from possessing information in an electronic form, such as a diskette, and therefore has no need for any passwords. By providing paper copies of the electronic information Plaintiff requested, Defendants eliminated the need to provide Plaintiff any passwords. Plaintiff replies that he would like the electronically stored information to be given to CSATF computer technicians to retrieve the data and translate it into a “usable form” before it is provided to Plaintiff. Ruling: Defendants’ objections are sustained. As discussed above, the electronically stored information sought by Plaintiff is only minimally relevant to his claims, if relevant at all. Defendants have agreed to provide all relevant information in paper form. Plaintiff therefore has no need for Defendants’ passwords. Defendants will not be required to provide a further response to this request. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 e. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s December 2, 2014 motion to compel will be granted in part. Defendants will be required to provide Plaintiff with chronos authored by Defendant Isira in 2011, or to provide those chronos for in camera review, within thirty days of the date of this order. 2. February 9, 2015 Motion On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel a further response to his 27 28 19 1 Requests for Production of Documents, Sets One6 and Three. (ECF No. 69.) Having 2 considered the motion, Defendants’ opposition (ECF No. 70), Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 3 73), and the relevant discovery requests and responses, the Court rules as follows. a. 4 Request No. 2, Set 1: Request: 5 6 All photographs, videotapes, diagrams or other depictions of any defendant named, including plaintiff, in the above action or any location where any of the Complaint filed in the above action took place. 7 8 Response: 9 Objection. The request for photographs, videotapes, diagrams or other depictions of Defendants is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is overbroad, and invasive of Defendants’ privacy. The only photographs of Plaintiff in possession, custody or control of Defendants are contained in Plaintiff’s Central File, which is equally available to Plaintiff. Therefore, this request is unduly burdensome. Defendants are in possession, custody or control of a video interview of Plaintiff, conducted on January 24, 2011, prior to the incident(s) which are the subject of this Complaint, which already has been shown to Plaintiff in connection with the Wheeler v. Allison action. Defendants contend that this video interview is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Ruling: 18 The request is overbroad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant 19 or admissible evidence. Additionally, Plaintiff’s request, stated in his motion, that 20 Defendants create photographs or video of the layout of his housing facility exceeds the 21 scope of a request for production of documents. Defendants objections are sustained. b. 22 Request No. 3, Set 1: Request: 23 24 Please provide any and all writings containing any statements by any person concerning the defendants statements, communication, interviews, they made to CDCR Employees. 25 26 Response: 27 28 6 Plaintiff apparently propounded two separate Requests for Production, Set One. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 Objection. To the extent that the request includes writings concerning other inmates, the request is overbroad and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants object that the request violates the privacy of the other inmates, and seeks information that is deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, section 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, section 3370(d). 7 8 9 Without waiving these objections, Defendants will comply with this request and will produce all non-confidential documents authored by Defendants concerning the events which are the subject of this action. (Attachment 1.) 10 Ruling: 11 Defendants state that they have produced all statements made by them 12 concerning the events that are subject of this action. A review of Defendants’ privilege 13 log reflects that documents responsive to this request were not withheld on privilege 14 grounds. Plaintiff nonetheless speculates that all responsive documents were not 15 produced. This speculation is insufficient to warrant compelling a further response. c. 16 17 18 19 20 Request No. 4, Set 1: Request: Please provide any and all writings evidencing or reflecting any action, claim, lawsuit or demand for compensation made by defendants or against defendants within the last ten years. Response: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Objection. The request is overbroad as to time and unduly burdensome. The request calls for public information equally available to Plaintiff. The request for claims for compensation made by Defendants is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ruling: The request for “any and all writings” relating to Defendants’ litigation history is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff may be able to request limited information regarding demands for compensation made against Defendants by propounding 28 21 1 interrogatories. The request for information regarding claims for compensation made by 2 Defendants is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. 3 Defendants’ objections are sustained. d. 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 Request No. 6, Set 1: Request: Please provide all documents of investigations, interviews, reports by SATF S.P., hiring authority, CDCR, Risk Management Control, Health Care Services, internal affairs any CDCR Agency against all named defendants in 2011, 2012, and 2013, including confidential documents. Response: Objection. The request is overbroad as to time, is unduly burdensome, and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request seeks information that is deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). To the extent that this request includes personnel files of correctional staff, including staff who are not parties to this action, personnelrelated files are subject to the qualified privilege of official information and a federal common law privilege. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1991). Personnel files are also protected by the privacy rights of staff, including federal common law and applicable California statutes including Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8, Government Code section 6254 and Civil Code sections 1798.24 and 1798.40 and California Code of Regulations Title, 15 section 3400. Personnel files also are protected under California Evidence Code section 1040, et. seq., including section 1043. To the extent that the request includes complaints asserted by other inmates against Defendants, the request is unduly burdensome and invades the privacy of these other inmates. Without waiving these objections, Defendants have made a reasonable inquiry and conducted a diligent search for internal affairs investigations conducted by the hiring authority at SATF concerning Defendants, and disciplinary findings concerning Defendants, but are unable to comply with this request because such documents do not exist. Defendants will comply with this request and produce all non-confidential documents responsive to this request in their possession, custody or control. (Attachment 2.) 22 1 Ruling: 2 Defendants state that they have not been disciplined or subject to adverse action 3 at any time during their employment at CSATF. They have made a diligent search for 4 the requested records and have concluded that no such records exist. Defendants 5 cannot be required to produce documents that do not exist. 6 Defendants acknowledge that an investigation was undertaken by CDCR Lt. S. 7 Ramirez regarding allegations made by Plaintiff in June 2011, but that the allegations 8 did not directly name Defendants. They offer to submit the October 14, 2011 9 Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden K. Allison for in camera review, 10 but argue that it should not be produced to Plaintiff. 11 In relation to this and other requests, discussed below, Defendants will be 12 required to submit the October 14, 2011 Confidential Memorandum for in camera review 13 within thirty days. e. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Request No. 7, Set 1: Request: Please provide all mental health training materials, manuals for mental health employees, including defendants, at SATF S.P. CDCR, for 2010, 2011. Response: Objection. The request is overbroad as to time, is unduly burdensome, and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request seeks information that is deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). Arguments: 25 Defendants state that they provided Plaintiff with their I.S.T. training transcripts in 26 response to a separate request for production. They contend that much of their training 27 is irrelevant to this action and could compromise the security of the institution. 28 23 1 Plaintiff claims that training regarding patient-clinician confidentiality is relevant. 2 Ruling: 3 The instant action concerns Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants retaliated against 4 him for filing grievances and complaints and, in the case of Defendant Isira, purposefully 5 provided him with inadequate mental health care. The Court does not see the relevance 6 of Plaintiff’s request for training materials regarding confidentiality. His request for all 7 training materials is overbroad. Plaintiff may review Defendants’ training transcript and 8 identify specific training he believes to be relevant. He then may propound a request for 9 those specific materials. However, Defendants’ objections to this particular request are 10 sustained. f. 11 12 13 14 Request No. 9, Set 1: Request: Please provide copies of any and all statements made by any witness(s) to the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint. Response: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Objection. The request seeks information that is deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). Without waiving these objections, Defendants will comply with this request and will produce all non-confidential witness statements concerning the events which are the subject of this action. (Attachment 1.) 23 Arguments: 24 Plaintiff objects to two documents withheld from production on grounds of 25 privilege: (1) the Confidential Supplement to Appeal Log No. SATF-E-11-02792; and (2) 26 the Confidential CDC 128-C Chrono prepared by non-party A. Vickers, Ph.D., dated 27 May 31, 2012. Plaintiff since has been provided a copy of the Confidential Supplement 28 to Appeal Log No. SATF-E-11-02792. Defendants have provided a redacted copy of the 24 1 Vickers chrono with their opposition to the motion to compel, and offer to provide an 2 unredacted copy to the Court for in camera review. 3 Ruling: 4 Plaintiff’s desire to obtain the Vickers chrono appears to be based on his belief 5 that it reflects Vickers’ intent to retaliate against him, or false information relayed to 6 Vickers by Defendants in retaliation. Neither of these potential claims are at issue in the 7 instant action. Having reviewed the redacted chrono and Plaintiff’s arguments in support 8 of its production, the Court sustains Defendants’ objections. No further production is 9 required. g. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Request No. 10, Set 1: Request: Copies of any and all notes, calendars, diaries, e-mails, internet communications, postings concerning plaintiffdefendants by each defendant in this action, including electronically stored information and tangible things, as defined by rule 34(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, 2014. Response: 16 17 18 19 20 21 Objection. The request is vague, ambiguous and unintelligible concerning the terms “concerning plaintiffdefendants by each defendant in this action.” To the extent that the request calls for the production of writings made by Defendants which do not pertain to Plaintiff, the request is overbroad and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will comply with this request and will produce all documents authored by Defendants concerning the events which are the subject of this action. (Attachment 1.) 22 Ruling: 23 Defendants have produced all documents authored by Defendants concerning 24 the events at issue in this case. Defendants’ objections to further production are 25 sustained. No further production is warranted. h. 26 27 28 Request No. 11, Set 1: Request: Copies of any and all correspondence sent to or received 25 from anyone concerning this action by defendants in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. 1 2 Response: 3 Objection. The request is overbroad and violates the attorney client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants have made a reasonable inquiry and conducted a diligent search and are not in possession, custody or control of any unprivileged documents sent to or received from anyone concerning this action, other than documents contained in Plaintiff’s Central File and medical files. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion seeks communications between Defendants and their counsel. Such communications are protected by the attorney client privilege. Plaintiff’s request for in camera review of these communications will be denied. No further production is warranted. 12 13 i. Request No. 1, Set 3: Request: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 All personnel files, documents, (excluding personal information, except their formal education), of all defendants, including all disciplinary files, training, performance evaluations, annual training audits, internal affairs reports, investigations, California Health Care Services, Risk Management, hiring authorities, Sacramento, Elk Grove, California, Mr. Aminibadi’s, investigator’s reports, investigations, and Lupe Cartagena’s request for investigations to Mr. Aminibadi in November, December 2012, letters, reports, of Lupe Cartagena to Mr. Aminibadi. Response: Objection. The request is overbroad and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is compound and, to the extent that the requested documents are in possession of Plaintiff, or contained in his Central File, the request is unduly burdensome. The request also potentially includes personnel information concerning the responding party, which are subject to the qualified privilege of official information and a federal common law privilege. Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1991). Personnel files are also protected by the privacy rights of staff, including federal common law and applicable California statutes including Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8, Government Code section 6254 and Civil Code sections 1798.24 and 1798.40 and California Code of Regulations Title, 15 section 3400. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Personnel files also are protected under California Evidence Code section 1040, et. seq., including section 1043. Good cause does not exist for the production of Defendants’ personnel files, as none of the Defendants were disciplined or subjected to adverse actions, either as a result of the events which are the subject this claim, or at any time during their employment at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF). The request seeks information that is deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). The responding parties are in possession of a Confidential Memorandum, dated October 14, 2011, from CDCR Lt. S. Ramirez to Warden K. Allison. The responding parties no longer are in possession, custody or control of a recorded statement obtained by Lt. S. Ramirez from Plaintiff, on or about July 26, 2011. The responding parties are in possession of Confidential Supplements to Appeals concerning Log Number SATF-E11-02792, a Confidential Information memo, dated July 23, 2011, from CDCR Lt. S. Alva to CDCR Captain E. Smith, and a Confidential Supplementary Report, dated January 26, 2011, CDCR Lt. J. Rivero to CDCR Captain V. Ramirez. The responding parties have conducted a reasonable inquiry and a diligent search but are not in possession, custody or control of requests from Lupe Cartegena to M. Aminibadi for an investigation, investigative reports prepared by M. Aminibadi, or investigative reports California Health Care Services, Risk Management. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Without waiving these objections, the responding parties will produce all non-confidential training records in their possession, custody or control. (Attachment 1; see also attached Privilege Log.) The responding parties also will produce all records concerning Plaintiff in possession of Lupe Cartagena. (Attachment 2.) The responding parties also refer to e-mails which were addressed or copied to M. Aminibadi in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Bates, AGO 00001-00066, and in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of DocumentsElectronic, AGO 0050-160. Ruling: Defendants will not be ordered to produce their personnel files, for reasons already stated. The remaining dispute concerning this request appears to focus on 28 27 1 items included on Defendants’ privilege log. Defendants were ordered, above, to submit 2 the Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to the Court within thirty days. 3 Defendants also offer to submit a Confidential Information memo, dated July 23, 2011, 4 from CDCR Lt. S. Alva to CDCR Captain E. Smith, to the Court for in camera review. 5 Defendants will be ordered to do so within thirty days. 6 Defendants aver that they already have provided other privileged documents to 7 Plaintiff in connection with Wheeler v. Allison, No. 1:12-cv-00861-LJO-DLB. 8 Accordingly, no further response regarding these documents is required. j. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Request No. 2, Set 3: Request: All documents relating to Eric Wheeler, defendants, prepared by, written by, written to Lupe Cartagena in 2011, 2012, 2013 at SATF S.P. (a) Wheeler’s letter 10-3, 2011, addressed to K. Allison, Warden, re express issues and/or concerns alleging staff misconduct SATF S.P. Lupe Cartagena’s reply letter 10-102011. (b) Wheeler’s letters 7-12-11, addressed to K. Allison, Warden, express issues and/or concerns alleging staff misconduct on Fac. G, SATF, this letter contains the same staff allegations as Wheeler’s September 25, 2011, letter mailed to the office of Internal Affairs headquarters. Lupe Cartagena’s reply letter 10-25-11. (c) Wheeler’s letter 10-25-11, requesting the first name, and official title ___ Ms. Garcia, who works as a mental health social worker. Lupe Cartagena’s reply letter 10-31-11. (d) Wheeler’s letter 11-2-11, express concerns regarding allegations of staff misconduct on Fac. G, SATF, appears a duplicate letter of 9-25-11. The Internal Affairs Unit (IA) at SATF S.P. was forwarded a copy of your complaint and has reviewed the info provided by you. Lupe Cartagena’s reply letter 1-27-12. (e) Wheeler’s letter 10-29-12, addressed to Ralph M. Diaz, Warden, express issues and/or concerns alleging staff misconduct Fac. G. Lupe Cartagena’s reply letter 11-2-12. (f) Wheeler’s letter(s), 602’s 12-2012 addressed to Lupe Cartagena information officer SATF express issues of appeals coordinator intentionally preventing/refusing to file staff complaints/letters on alleged staff misconduct. Lupe 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cartagena implemented correspondence that lead to Mr. Aminibadi, Risk Management, hiring authority, Elk Grove, CA, Sacramento, CA investigation, sending ___ female/investigator from Sacramento, CA to SATF S.P. to investigate, interview Wheeler in January, 2013, to investigate Rocio Garcia, Lillian Goss, Victor Trevino, Abdul Isira, Raymond Coffin. (g) 602 complaint filed 7-20-11, with SATF S.P. internal affairs unit, by Wheeler, interviewed by Lt. Ramirez on July 26, 2011, at 10 am – tape recorded, misconduct by G-1 EOP staff, Lillian Goss, Rocio Garcia, and Wheeler’s 7-1-11, letter to OIA. (h) Wheeler’s letter 6-25-11, V. Ramirez, Fac. Captain/K. Allison, Warden/Florence Cote. 9 I request all of the above complete documents available. 10 Response: 11 12 13 Objection. The request is overbroad and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is compound and, to the extent that the requested documents are in possession of Plaintiff, or contained in his Central File, the request is unduly burdensome. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The seeks [sic] information that is deemed confidential under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3321, the disclosure of which could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution. Additionally, the production of confidential information is improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). The responding parties are in possession of a Confidential Memorandum, dated October 14, 2011, from CDCR Lt. S. Ramirez to Warden K. Allison. The responding parties no longer are in possession, custody or control of a recorded statement obtained by Lt. S. Ramirez from Plaintiff, on or about July 26, 2011. The responding parties are in possession of Confidential Supplements to Appeals concerning Log Number SATF-E11-02792, a Confidential Information memo, dated July 23, 2011, from CDCR Lt. S. Alva to CDCR Captain E. Smith, and a Confidential Supplementary Report, dated January 26, 2011, CDCR Lt. J. Rivero to CDCR Captain V. Ramirez. Without waiving these objections, the responding parties will produce all records concerning Plaintiff in possession of Lupe Cartagena. (Attachment 2; see also attached Privilege Log.) The responding parties also will produce Plaintiff’s letter to Lt. Romero, dated June 25, 2011. (Attachment 3.) 27 Ruling: 28 The dispute regarding this request is the same as that above, regarding 29 1 privileged documents in response to Request No. 1, Set 3. Accordingly, the Court 2 reaches the same ruling: Defendants are required to provide the October 14, 2011 3 Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden Allison, and the July 23, 2011 4 Confidential Information memo from Lt. S. Alva to CDCR Captain E. Smith, to the Court 5 for in camera review within thirty days. k. 6 7 8 9 Request No. 4, Set 3: Request: All mental health training materials, manuals, IST training, of defendants. Response: 10 11 12 13 Objection. The request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, the responding parties will produce all non-confidential training records in their possession, custody or control. (Attachment 1; see also attached Privilege Log.) 14 Ruling: 15 As noted above, Defendants have provided Plaintiff with their IST training 16 transcripts. They contend that disclosure of all training materials is burdensome and 17 irrelevant. Plaintiff claims that the training materials are needed to show that 18 Defendants’ did not follow their training in their interactions with Plaintiff. 19 Defendants’ objections to this request are sustained, for the reasons stated 20 above. As noted, if Plaintiff wishes, he may propound more specific discovery requests 21 regarding particular aspects of Defendants’ training. However, Defendants will not be 22 required to provide a further response to this interrogatory. l. 23 24 25 26 27 Request No. 5, Set 3: Request: All documents, e-mails, letters from defendant Rocio Garcia, CSP-Los Angeles County, Lancaster, CA., place of current employment from 2012, 2013 and 2014, pertaining to Erik Wheeler, any named defendant in this action. Response: 28 30 1 2 3 4 Objection. This request is overbroad and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, the responding parties previously produced all documents responsive to this request in Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (AGO 50-57), and Response to Request for Production of Documents-Electronic. (AGO 49-160.) 5 Ruling: 6 Defendants state that they have provided all e-mails in their possession 7 concerning Plaintiff. Plaintiff maintains he has not received e-mails from CSP-LAC or 8 from all of the Defendants. 9 Defendants state that they have produced all of the e-mails responsive to this 10 request. If Plaintiff did not receive e-mails from CSP-LAC or from all Defendants, the 11 Court must conclude such e-mails do not exist. Defendants cannot be required to 12 produce documents that do not exist. No further response is warranted. m. 13 14 15 Request No. 6, Set 3: Request: All documents of R. Garcia’s formal education. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Response: Objection. The request is overbroad and invasive of the Defendant’s privacy rights. Without waiving these objections, the responding party will produce documents responsive to this request (Attachment 5.) Ruling: Defendants state that they agreed to provide copies of Defendant Garcia’s diplomas to Plaintiff as an accommodation. However, the request is otherwise overbroad, invasive of Defendant’s privacy rights, and unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff acknowledges he received Defendant Garcia’s diplomas. He states further documentation is relevant to impeach Defendant’s credibility and to show she violated patient-provider confidentiality. 28 31 1 Defendants’ objections are sustained. Documents beyond Defendant’s Garcia’s 2 professional diplomas are not relevant to this action. The request is overbroad. No 3 further response is required. n. 4 5 Conclusion Defendants will be ordered to provide the October 14, 2011 Confidential 6 Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden Allison, and the July 23, 2011 Confidential 7 Information memo from Lt. Alva to Captain Smith, to the Court for in camera review 8 within thirty days. 9 10 11 C. Defendants’ Motion to Compel 1. Arguments Defendants move to compel Plaintiff’s response to deposition questions and to 12 compel Plaintiff to produce documents. (ECF No. 67.) Specifically, Defendants contend 13 that Plaintiff intends to introduce evidence that he previously enjoyed a close 14 relationship with Defendant Garcia, and that Garcia provided him with photographs of 15 herself in her apartment and in various stages of undress. Plaintiff refused to produce 16 the photographs at his deposition, stating that he gave the photographs to another 17 inmate for safekeeping. He also refused to identify the inmate in possession of the 18 photographs. Defendants ask that Plaintiff be compelled to produce the photographs 19 and identify the inmate in possession of the photographs. 20 Plaintiff responds that the photographs are not in his control and that, in any 21 event, he intends to proceed “with the art of surprise.” (ECF No. 71.) He states that he 22 will not divulge any defenses, impeachment witnesses, or impeachment material, “until 23 its time,” which, according to Plaintiff, is at trial. He also argues that the photographs 24 themselves are unnecessary because Plaintiff himself can attest to their contents. 25 Defendants reply reiterates arguments presented in their initial motion. (ECF No. 26 72.) 27 28 2. Analysis Plaintiff cannot be compelled to provide documents that are not within his 32 1 possession, custody, or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Plaintiff states that he 2 does not have control of the photographs because he gave them to another inmate 3 several years ago. 4 The absence of current possession and immediate control of documents properly 5 sought in discovery is not justification for non-production of them; a party has a duty to 6 secure and produce documents that are subject to his custody or control even if he 7 does not actually have them in his possession. Plaintiff must provide a further sworn 8 response to this Request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). If, in such further response, 9 Plaintiff states under penalty of perjury that he has no right, power, authority or other 10 ability to retrieve and produce the requested photographs, then he cannot be compelled 11 to produce them. See U.S. v. Int’l Union of Petroleum and Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 12 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989). Hence, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to produce 13 the photographs would have to be denied. 14 However, Plaintiff cannot be permitted to unilaterally deny current ability to obtain 15 the photographs and then later, at trial, claim he regained that ability and attempt to 16 introduce them into evidence without having provided them to Defendant via discovery. 17 Such a development could be expected to produce an Order barring Plaintiff from 18 introducing any such photographs into evidence in support of his claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). 20 Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to provide a further answer to the 21 request within thirty days of the date of this Order specifying whether he in fact believes 22 he has or expects to have the right to direct production of the photographs from a third 23 party or otherwise. If he says he does, they must be produced within thirty days 24 thereafter. If he does not produce them as provided herein, Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) will come into play. 26 Regardless, Plaintiff has no legal basis for refusing to provide the name of the 27 inmate to whom he allegedly gave the photographs. Plaintiff’s argument that he is not 28 required to divulge information regarding his defenses, impeachment witnesses, or 33 1 impeachment material, is without merit. Defendants are entitled to obtain discovery 2 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or Defendants’ 3 defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As the Court already has stated, Plaintiff is not 4 entitled to proceed “with the art of surprise.” 5 Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to identify the inmate to whom he gave the 6 photographs will be granted. Plaintiff will provide the identity of said inmate to 7 Defendants within thirty days. To the extent Defendants may wish to seek additional 8 information concerning said inmate, Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and 9 scheduling order to allow for further discovery on this issue is discussed below. 10 VI. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM 11 Plaintiff has filed three motions for subpoenas duces tecum. Each will be 12 addressed in turn. 13 A. Legal Standard 14 Pro se parties may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the 15 production of documents from a nonparty, subject to certain requirements. Fed. R. Civ. 16 P. 26(b), 34(c), 45. The Court will consider granting such a request only if the 17 documents sought from the nonparty are not equally available to Plaintiff and are not 18 obtainable from Defendant through a request for the production. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. 19 If Defendant objects to Plaintiff's discovery request, a motion to compel is the next 20 required step. If the Court rules that the documents are discoverable but Defendant 21 does not have care, custody, and control of them, Plaintiff may then seek a subpoena of 22 a nonparty. Alternatively, if the Court rules that the documents are not discoverable, the 23 inquiry ends. The Court will not issue a subpoena for a nonparty without Plaintiff first 24 following the procedure outlined above. 25 26 27 B. First Request 1. Arguments The first motion seeks to subpoena Nathan Wilcox or the current Correctional 28 Counselor II/Public Records Act Coordinator/Litigation Coordinator at California State 34 1 Prison Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”) to produce photographs of Defendant Garcia, 2 her office, “workplace area,” and the surrounding walls. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff 3 specifically seeks color photographs of any “prisoner art, poems, greeting cards, outside 4 and inside of said card, any type drawings and prisoner crafts, letters located within 5 [Defendant] Garcia’s office, workplace desk, computer at CSP.” Plaintiff asks the Court 6 to appoint a court representative or Marshal to take the photographs on Plaintiff’s 7 behalf. 8 Defendants oppose the request on the ground that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate 9 that Defendant Garcia is in possession of the materials Plaintiff alleges she possessed 10 at CSATF or that these items are located in her office at CSP-LAC. (ECF No. 50.) 11 Plaintiff does not include with his request any request for production of documents 12 indicating Plaintiff has requested such documents, nor any responses from Defendant 13 indicating she has possession, custody, or control of these documents. Additionally, 14 Defendants make an offer of proof that Defendant Garcia disposed of any items given to 15 her by inmates at CSATF when she left that facility in May 2013. Accordingly, the 16 burden of complying with the request would not be outweighed by any benefit. Lastly, 17 Plaintiff has not shown he can pay the statutory witness fee. 18 Plaintiff responds that Defendant Garcia’s history of receiving, concealing, and 19 destroying art, cards, and gifts given to her by inmates warrants the issuance of a 20 subpoena. (ECF No. 55.) He asserts that she took some of these items home, and 21 speculates that she kept those items that are “special.” Further, Plaintiff contends that 22 Defendant may be continuing her “practice” of retaining such items from inmates in her 23 current office, which practice would be relevant to his claims. He asks that the witness 24 fees be waived. He contends he is not required to propound a request for production of 25 documents before seeking a subpoena. 26 27 2. Ruling Nothing in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 authorizes the issuance of a 28 subpoena for a third party to create evidence to support Plaintiff’s case. See Fed. R. 35 1 Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(iii) (a subpoena must “command each person to whom it is directed to 2 do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify; produce designated 3 documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person's 4 possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises”). Additionally, 5 Plaintiff cites no statutory authority that would permit the Court to order that 6 photographs be taken at public expense. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 7 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he expenditure of public funds [on behalf of an indigent litigant] is 8 proper only when authorized by Congress. . . .” (quoting United States v. MacCollom, 9 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976))). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion requesting that someone be 10 ordered to take photographs on his behalf must be denied. 11 Furthermore, even if such a request were authorized, the information requested 12 is not discoverable because it is irrelevant. Whether Defendant Garcia’s current office at 13 CSP-LAC contains prisoner art or letters would not tend to make a fact of consequence 14 in this action more or less likely. Such evidence is temporally remote from the events at 15 issue and would not tend to show that Plaintiff filed grievances or complained of 16 Defendant’s conduct, or that Defendant retaliated because of those complaints. 17 C. Second Request 18 1. 19 Plaintiff’s Arguments second request seeks to subpoena the CSATF Business 20 Services/State Computer Tech Services Department Supervisor(s) or current Warden to 21 provide (1) written instructions for removal of state computer servers for the computers 22 of Defendants and others in 2014, (2) computers and servers used to track those 23 computers and their documents from 2011 to 2014, (3) information concerning the 24 current whereabouts of those servers and their custodian, (4) inventory and accounting 25 data for the computers and servers from 2011 to 2014. (ECF No. 59.) He also requests 26 that the Marshal Service serve the subpoena and that fees be waived. 27 Defendants argue that the information requested is not relevant and that 28 compliance with the request would be unduly burdensome. (ECF No. 63.) 36 1 Plaintiff responds that the information sought is “very relevant.” (ECF No. 64.) 2 Plaintiff alleges that he has raised allegations of misconduct by all staff (beyond just the 3 named Defendants) in a separate action, Wheeler v. Alison, 12-cv-861-LJO-DLB. He 4 further argues that the information is relevant because his complaints concerning staff 5 misuse of computers form the basis of his retaliation claim. He also alleges that the 6 computer information will show that Defendant Isira altered two chronos relating to 7 Plaintiff. 2. 8 9 Ruling Plaintiff’s argument that the information sought is relevant to a separate action is 10 unavailing. He cannot seek discovery pertaining to that action in this case. 11 To the extent Plaintiff argues the information is relevant to this action, his request 12 will be denied for the reasons stated above in relation to his December 2, 2014 motion 13 to compel. 14 D. 1. 15 16 Third Request Arguments Plaintiff’s third request seeks to subpoena E. Smith or the current Public 17 Information Officer/Administrative Assistant at CSATF, and the Warden, to produce 18 documents and reports relating to internal affairs investigations initiated as a result of 19 Plaintiff’s complaints in 2011 and 2012; documents and reports initiated as a result of 20 Plaintiff’s complaints to Lupe Cartagena, Administrative Assistant/Public Information 21 Officer; and documents from CDCR headquarters and the Director of Mental Health 22 pertaining to Defendants. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff asks that fees relating to the subpoena 23 be waived. 24 25 26 Defendants filed no opposition. 2. Ruling Plaintiff has not shown that these documents cannot be obtained from 27 Defendants through a request for the production. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. He arguably 28 has filed a motion to compel some of this information from Defendants. However, 37 1 Defendants’ objections to those requests have been sustained herein. Accordingly, his 2 request for a subpoena will be denied. 3 VII. MOTIONS FOR COURT ORDERS 4 Plaintiff has filed two motions for court orders. 5 A. 6 On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing First Motion 7 Defendants to copy documents for him. (ECF No. 48.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests 8 that the Court order Defendants or the Facility B Librarian at Mule Creek State Prison to 9 copy documents relating to this case. He asserts that the documents otherwise will be 10 copied by inmate law library clerks. Plaintiff does not wish for his confidential documents 11 to be viewed by inmate clerks. He also contends that he wishes to make copies in 12 excess of the 50-page limit imposed by Mule Creek State Prison. Plaintiff is willing to 13 pay for the copies. 14 Defendants respond that they arranged for the Law Librarian at Mule Creek State 15 Prison to make copies of Plaintiff’s documents at Plaintiff’s expense. 16 In light of Defendants’ response, Plaintiff’s request will be denied as moot. 17 B. 18 Plaintiff requests a court order requiring Defendants to make his central file Second Motion 19 available for review for a reasonable time. (ECF No. 52.) According to Plaintiff, the file 20 contains 2,100 pages and he is permitted to review his file in thirty minute increments. 21 Defendants are or were employed at CSATF. Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at 22 Mule Creek State Prison. Neither Mule Creek State Prison nor its staff is party to this 23 action. The Court has no authority to order parties not before the Court to take action. 24 Zepeda v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Servs., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th 25 Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the 26 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine 27 the rights of persons not before the court.”). 28 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. Nevertheless, the Court will request 38 1 that defense counsel seek the assistance of the litigation coordinator at Plaintiff’s 2 institution in resolving Plaintiff’s concerns. 3 VIII. MOTIONS TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 4 The Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting December 11, 2014 5 as the deadline to amend pleadings, and February 11, 2015 as the discovery deadline. 6 (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff and Defendants seek to modify the discovery and scheduling 7 order in different ways as set out below. All of the motions were filed prior to the 8 expiration of the applicable deadlines. 9 10 A. Motion to Extend Deadline to Amend Pleadings Plaintiff requests a fourteen day extension of time to file an 11 “amended/supplemental” complaint. (ECF No. 47.) He states that documents received 12 during discovery reveal additional potential claims, specifically a conspiracy to retaliate 13 against him and remove him from the EOP program. The allegations concern events 14 occurring on April 30, 2014, after Plaintiff was transferred back to CSATF. He states 15 these allegations constitute violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. 16 Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that the events at issue occurred 17 nearly three years after the events that are the subject of this action, and constitute a 18 separate occurrence and therefore a separate claim. (ECF No. 53.) They point out that 19 other deadlines in the case, such as the discovery cut-off and dispositive motion 20 deadline, would need to be modified to accommodate any amendment. 21 In Plaintiff’s reply, he attempts to explain the bases for his proposed additional 22 allegations, which apparently arise out of a chrono written by Defendant Goss. (ECF 23 No. 61.) The additional allegations are difficult to understand. Although Plaintiff clearly 24 takes issue with the chrono, the Court is unable to discern what, if any, adverse or 25 unconstitutional action Plaintiff was subjected to as a result of the chrono. Nevertheless, 26 it is apparent that Plaintiff received additional documents during discovery that he 27 believes support further claims. 28 39 1 The Court will grant Plaintiff fourteen days from the date of service of this order to 2 submit an amended complaint. Nevertheless, Plaintiff must seek leave of the Court 3 before his amended complaint may be filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). If Plaintiff wishes 4 to amend, he must file a motion demonstrating that amendment is proper under Federal 5 Rule of Civil Procedure 15, and must lodge a copy of his proposed amended complaint 6 with the Court. See Local Rule 137(c); cf. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 7 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing approvingly to Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 8 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987)). 9 The Court then will determine whether amendment is proper. Under Rule 10 15(a)(2), the court should freely give leave to amend a pleading “when justice so 11 requires.” The Court should apply this policy “with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser 12 Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Morongo Band of 13 Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F. 2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). “If the underlying facts 14 or circumstances relied upon by a [party] may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to 15 be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 16 178, 182 (1962). However, a district court may deny leave to amend where there is 17 “’any apparent or declared reason’ for doing so, including undue delay, undue prejudice 18 to the opposing party or futility of the amendment.” Lockman Found. v. Evangelical 19 Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 772 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Forman, 371 U.S. at 182). 20 These factors are not to be given equal weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 21 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Prejudice to the opposing party must be given the 22 greatest weight. Id. “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining 23 Forman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave 24 to amend.” Id. 25 Plaintiff is warned that his proposed amended complaint must contain a “short 26 and plaint statement” of the grounds for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In this regard, 27 Plaintiff is encouraged to limit his proposed amended complaint to no more than 25 28 pages. A proposed amended complaint that is exceedingly and baselessly lengthy will 40 1 be disregarded and will not be filed. Additionally, Plaintiff may not attempt to renew 2 claims that have been dismissed with prejudice in the Court’s prior screening order. 3 (ECF Nos. 26, 28.) 4 Plaintiff further is warned that that an amended complaint be complete in itself 5 without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. As a general rule, an amended 6 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th 7 Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves 8 any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 9 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 10 alleged. 11 B. Motions to Extend the Discovery Cut-Off 12 Plaintiff moved to extend the discovery cut-off by sixty days. (ECF No. 65.) 13 Defendants filed no opposition. 14 Additionally, Defendants moved to extend the discovery cut-off to allow them to 15 conduct discovery relating to their motion to compel, to the extent such motion was 16 granted. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff opposed the motion to compel but did not specifically 17 oppose the request for a discovery extension. (ECF No. 71.) 18 Good cause having been shown, the discovery cut-off will extended to and 19 including August 14, 2015. Discovery requests must be served sufficiently in advance of 20 this deadline to permit time for a response and time to prepare and file a motion to 21 compel. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Oppose Summary Judgment 22 C. 23 Plaintiff sought an extension of time to oppose the motion for summary judgment 24 due to his pending discovery motions, resolved herein. (ECF No. 77.) Thereafter, on 25 May 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed his opposition. Good cause having presented, the motion for 26 extension of time will be granted, nunc pro tunc to May 21, 2015. 27 In light of the rulings herein, Plaintiff also will be granted an opportunity to file a 28 supplemental opposition to the motion for summary judgment, if any he has, following 41 1 receipt of additional discovery. The supplemental opposition is limited to twenty-five (25) 2 pages, excluding exhibits. The supplemental opposition shall be filed on or before 3 September 4, 2015. Defendants may file a reply to the supplemental opposition within 4 seven days of the supplemental opposition being filed. 5 In the event Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is accepted for filing, the 6 Court then will address the need for further discovery and/or dispositive motions on 7 Plaintiff’s newly added claims. 8 IX. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS 9 Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint psychological and psychiatric experts to assist 10 the Court and the trier of fact to understand Plaintiff’s underlying mental health care 11 needs. (ECF No. 76.) Defendants oppose the motion on the ground the expert is 12 requested to assist Plaintiff, rather than the Court. (ECF No. 78.) Additionally, 13 Defendants contend that an expert would not be useful because Plaintiff’s claim is 14 based on intentional, retaliatory misdiagnosis, rather than professional negligence. 15 An expert witness may testify to help the trier of fact understand the evidence or 16 determine a fact at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of 17 Evidence, the district court has discretion to appoint a neutral expert on its own motion 18 or on the motion of a party. Fed. R. Evid. 706(a); Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long 19 Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.1999). Rule 706 does not 20 contemplate court appointment and compensation of an expert witness as an advocate 21 for Plaintiff. See Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08cv1113 MJL (PCL), 2010 WL 2228427, at 22 *1 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2010) (citation omitted). 23 The appointment of an independent expert is to assist the trier of fact, not a 24 particular litigant. See Joe S.Cecil & Thomas E. Willging, Court-Appointed Experts, at 25 538 (Fed. Jud. Center 1994) (Rule 706 is meant to promote accurate fact finding where 26 issues are complex, esoteric and beyond the ability of the fact finder to understand 27 without expert assistance). Here, Plaintiff requests independent experts to establish 28 elements of his case. Rule 706 does not exist to assist a party. 42 1 Appointment of an independent expert under Rule 706 should be reserved for 2 exceptional cases in which the ordinary adversary process does not suffice. In re Joint 3 E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 830 F.Supp. 686, 693 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (allowing 4 appointment of independent expert in mass tort case). This case is not such an 5 exceptional case. 6 Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 7 independent experts will be denied. 8 X. MOTION FOR STATUS 9 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the reason his motions were not yet ruled on. 10 (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff also has submitted a letter complaining that his motions have not 11 been ruled on. (ECF No. 82.) 12 The Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 13 California carries one of the busiest dockets in the country. The Court is faced with 14 cases similar to Plaintiff’s almost daily. There is a backlog of cases and resulting delay 15 in addressing motions. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motions are numerous and lengthy. 16 Indeed, Plaintiff has submitted well over 1,000 pages of briefing and exhibits in this 17 action. The Court herein has addressed Plaintiff’s pending motions. Any further motions 18 from Plaintiff will be addressed in due course. 19 To the extent the status of Plaintiff’s motions is provided herein, his motion for 20 status will be granted. 21 XI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 22 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 24 25 26 1. Plaintiff’s motion to seal and for a protective order (ECF No. 46) is DENIED; 2. The Clerks are directed to return Plaintiff’s November 26, 2014 declaration to Plaintiff; 27 3. Plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence (ECF No. 44) is DENIED; 28 4. Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery (ECF Nos. 43 and 69) are 43 1 GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 2 a. Defendants are required to provide Plaintiff with all chronos 3 authored by Defendant Isira in 2011, or to provide such chronos to 4 the Court for in camera review within thirty (30) days; 5 b. Defendants are required to provide the October 14, 2011 6 Confidential Memorandum from Lt. Ramirez to Warden Allison to 7 the Court for in camera review within thirty (30) days; 8 c. Defendants are required to provide the July 23, 2011 Confidential 9 Information memo from Lt. Alva to Captain Smith to the Court for in 10 camera review within thirty (30) days; and 11 d. In all other respects, the motion is denied; 12 13 5. Defendants’ motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 67) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 14 a. Plaintiff is ordered to provide to the Court, within thirty days, a 15 sworn statement specifying whether he believes he has or expects 16 to have the right to direct production of requested photographs from 17 a third party or otherwise. If he does have such a right, the 18 photographs must be produced within thirty days thereafter. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b. Plaintiff is required within thirty days to identify the inmate to whom he gave photographs of Defendant Garcia; 6. Plaintiff’s requests for subpoenas duces tecum (ECF Nos. 45, 59, and 60) are DENIED; 7. Plaintiff’s motion for court order regarding copies (ECF No. 48) is DENIED as moot; 8. Plaintiff’s motion for court order regarding review of his central file (ECF No. 52) is DENIED; 27 9. Defendants’ are ordered to contact the litigation coordinator at Plaintiff’s 28 institution to request assistance in resolving Plaintiff’s concerns regarding 44 review of his central file; 1 10. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to amend pleadings (ECF No. 47) 2 is GRANTED; 3 11. Plaintiff may seek leave to amend his complaint within fourteen (14) days 4 of the date of this order; 5 12. Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ respective motions to extend the discovery cut- 6 off (ECF nos. 65 and 67) are GRANTED; 7 8 13. The discovery cut-off is extended to and including August 14, 2015; 9 14. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to oppose the motion for summary 10 judgment (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED, and the deadline is extended nunc 11 pro tunc to May 21, 2015; 15. Plaintiff may file a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary 12 judgment on or before September 4, 2015; 13 16. Defendants’ may file a supplemental reply within seven (7) days of 14 Plaintiff’s opposition; 15 17. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert witness (ECF No. 76) is 16 DENIED; and 17 18. Plaintiff’s motions for status (ECF No. 66 and 82) are GRANTED to the 18 extent his motions are addressed herein. 19 20 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 2, 2015 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 45 1 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 46

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?