Bell v. Heberling et al

Filing 115

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions to Compel 95 , 100 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/10/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HORACE THOMAS, a.k.a Horace Bell,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
S HEBERLING, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

19

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01248-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTIONS
TO COMPEL
[ECF Nos. 95, 100]

Plaintiff Horace Bell is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1983.
On April 27, 2015, and May 7, 2015, respectively, Plaintiff filed his fifth and sixth motions to

20

compel. (ECF Nos. 95, 100.) Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to his request for production

21

of documents, sets three and four. Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff‟s motions to compel on

22

May 19, 2015. (ECF No. 108.)

23

I.

24

DISCUSSION

25

A.

Legal Standard

26

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and he is a state prisoner challenging his conditions of

27

confinement.

As a result, the parties were relieved of some of the requirements which would

28

otherwise apply, including initial disclosure and the need to meet and confer in good faith prior to
1

1

involving the Court in a discovery dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Fed. R. Civ.

2

P. 37(a)(1); Local Rules 240, 251; ECF No. 37, Discovery and Scheduling Order, &5. Further, where

3

otherwise discoverable information would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison or

4

infringe upon a protected privacy interest, a need may arise for the Court to balance interests in

5

determining whether disclosure should occur.

6

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n.21 (1984) (privacy rights or interests implicit in broad purpose and

7

language of Rule 26(c)); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of

8

Montana, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing assertion of privilege); Soto v. City of

9

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (recognizing a constitutionally-based right of privacy

10

that can be raised in discovery); see also Garcia v. Clark, No. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC, 2012

11

WL 1232315, at *6 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) (noting inmate=s entitlement to inspect discoverable

12

information may be accommodated in ways which mitigate institutional safety concerns); Robinson v.

13

Adams, No. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM PC, 2012 WL 912746, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012)

14

(issuing protective order regarding documents containing information which implicated the safety and

15

security of the prison); Orr v. Hernandez, No. CV-08-0472-JLQ, 2012 WL 761355, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal.

16

Mar. 7, 2012) (addressing requests for protective order and for redaction of information asserted to

17

risk jeopardizing safety and security of inmates or the institution if released); Womack v. Virga, No.

18

CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P, 2011 WL 6703958, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (requiring

19

defendants to submit withheld documents for in camera review or move for a protective order).

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Seattle Times Co. v.

20

However, this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. The

21

discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith, and callous disregard of

22

discovery responsibilities cannot be condoned. Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d

23

1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties may obtain discovery

24

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party=s claim or defense, and for good cause,

25

the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed.

26

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial

27

if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

28
2

1

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel

2

bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV

3

S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at

4

*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis

5

v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).

6

This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the

7

motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why

8

the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack,

9

2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4.

10

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these

11

procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigation; therefore, to the extent possible, the

12

Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d

13

606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir.

14

2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

15

B.

Motion to Compel

16

1.

Fifth Motion to Compel (ECF No. 95)

17

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to his request for production of documents, sets three and

18
19

four.
Plaintiff specifically moves to compel Defendants‟ responses to his request for production of

20

documents set three, because “Defendants have failed to respond adequately and provided evasive and

21

incomplete responses.” (ECF No. 95 at 1.) Plaintiff contends that he will be unduly prejudiced

22

without each request. (Id. at 1-2.)

23

In set three, Plaintiff‟s first and second requests for production seek Defendants‟ full personnel

24

files and all formal and informal written complaints against them, without regard to subject matter and

25

time. As stated in the Court‟s May 15, 2015, order denying Plaintiff‟ second motion to compel,

26

“Plaintiff‟s request for the „personnel files of each‟ is overbroad and seeks information that would not

27

be relevant to this action. (ECF No. 106, Order at 5.) Plaintiff does not provide any further argument

28

in his fifth motion to compel as to why he now claims he is entitled to such documents.
3

1

In the third request for production contained in set three, Plaintiff seeks all policies and

2

procedures regarding reprisals or retaliation for filing a lawsuit or inmate appeal. (ECF No. 95 at 10.)

3

Defendants correctly responded that this request is identical to Plaintiff‟s third request, contained in

4

his second set of requests for production. (Id.) In their previous response to Plaintiff‟s third request

5

contained in the second set of requests for production, Defendants noted that Plaintiff is not

6

proceeding on a claim that any defendant retaliated against him for filing lawsuits or prison appeals.

7

(ECF No. 85 at 3-4.) Rather, this action is proceeding against Defendants S. Herberling, J. Sheer, and

8

E. Nesmith for labeling Plaintiff as a snitch and ordering him to be attacked on the yard in violation of

9

the Eighth Amendment. Thus, this request seeks documents not relevant to any claim or defense at

10

issue in this lawsuit, and it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

11

Defendants submit that they nonetheless produced several responsive documents to Plaintiff. (ECF

12

No. 108 at 3.) In this instant motion to compel, Plaintiff makes no attempt to explain how the

13

documents requested are relevant to his claims or how the documents produced were inadequate.

14

Without such a showing, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden demonstrating that Defendants‟

15

responses and objections to his discovery requests were inadequate or unjustified. Accordingly,

16

Plaintiff‟s fifth motion to compel must be DENIED.

17

2.

Sixth Motion to Compel (ECF No. 100)

18

In his sixth motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks further responses to his request for production of

19

documents, set four. (ECF No. 100.) In requests one and three, Plaintiff sought policies and

20

procedures on two-fiver gangs within SATF and CDCR. Plaintiff merely contends in conclusory

21

fashion that the requested documents are relevant to his claim, but Plaintiff fails to explain how the

22

documents sought in these requests are relevant to his claim that Defendants labeled him a snitch and

23

ordered him to be attacked on the yard. In addition, Plaintiff does not address the fact that Defendants

24

produced non-confidential documents responsive to three of his production requests, nor does he

25

explain how the documents produced are inadequate. Plaintiff also fails to address Defendants‟

26

objections to his discovery requests, beyond merely concluding that the documents sought are not

27

confidential. (ECF No. 100 at 1.) Plaintiff bears the burden of identifying which responses are in

28

dispute and providing sufficient information so that the Court can discern why he is challenging the
4

1

response. It is insufficient for Plaintiff to merely attach discovery responses to his motion to compel

2

and claim he is not satisfied and requests a further response.
Plaintiff also seeks to compel Defendants to remove the video surveillance equipment from

3
4

Facility D‟s yard at SATF and produce it to him. (ECF No. 100 at 2.) In response to Plaintiff‟s

5

request, Defendants explained that, to the extent Plaintiff sought surveillance video footage, no such

6

video exists, and therefore could not be produced. (Id. at 5.) Defendants also objected on various

7

grounds to Plaintiff‟s request to produce the physical equipment itself. (Id.) Plaintiff fails to address

8

Defendants‟ objections and merely concludes that the equipment can be removed and provided to him.

9

As previously stated, burden of identifying which responses are in dispute and providing sufficient

10

information so that the Court can discern why he is challenging the response. It is insufficient for

11

Plaintiff to merely attach discovery responses to his motion to compel and claim he is not satisfied and

12

requests a further response. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s sixth motion to compel must be DENIED.

13

II.

14

ORDER

15

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

Plaintiff‟s fifth motion to compel, filed April 27, 2015, is DENIED; and

17

2.

Plaintiff‟s sixth motion to compel, filed May 7, 2015, is DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

21

June 10, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5