Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 151

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's 135 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/21/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID ESTRADA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GIPSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Document 135)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to
the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims,
this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
Discovery closed on December 15, 2014.
On December 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Espinosa to provide
further responses to Interrogatory Numbers 1, 2, 8, 16 and 20. Defendants did not file an opposition
and the Court deems the matter suitable for decision pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

27
28
1

1
2

DISCUSSION
A.

3
4
5
6
7

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party=s
claim or defense, and for good cause, the Court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (quotation marks omitted). Relevant
information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

8
9
10
11
12
13

Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel
bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g., Grabek v. Dickinson,
2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which
discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the
information sought is relevant and why the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek,
2012 WL 113799, at *1.

14
15
16
17

Legal Standard

However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding
these procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigator. Therefore, to the extent possible,
the Court endeavors to resolve the motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672
F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th

18
Cir. 2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).
19
B.

Analysis

20
Interrogatory Number 1
21
Please state the names, titles and positions, including the corresponding dates of all staff
22
members you relayed, notified, emailed, texted, phoned or shared information with regarding all
23
information Plaintiff shared with you regarding LVN Delorise Tassey and please provide these
24
documents.
25
26
27

Response: Objection. This interrogatory improperly requests the production of documents.
Without waiving this objection, Defendant responds as follows: The Investigative Services Unit. I

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

did not conduct the confidential investigation. The investigation was done by the Investigative
Services Unit.
Ruling:
Defendant is correct that Plaintiff is not entitled to documents in response to an interrogatory.
As to the substantive response, Plaintiff does not explain why he believes that the answer is
insufficient. Nonetheless, while Defendant stated that she gave the information to the Investigative
Services Unit, she does not specify any names of individuals within the Investigative Services Unit to
whom she has given information.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a
supplemental response identifying the individuals to whom she gave information, and the dates on
which she gave the information.
Interrogatory Number 2
State the names, titles, and positions of all staff members working on January 22, 2012, and
provide the names of the staff members who collected the Plaintiff’s property and exactly where it was
placed and reasons for it being taken from Plaintiff.

16
Response: I do not know the names of all staff members who worked on that day. There are
17
too many prison employees in many different departments for me to list. I do not know who collected
18

Plaintiff’s property and the circumstances surrounding the property collection. But I believe that

19
Plaintiff was placed on Management Cell status by Captain Castro, and that could be related to the
20
21

property issue. That information would be contained in Plaintiff’s Central File, which I do not have
because it would be at Plaintiff’s current prison. Plaintiff can check his property receipts or CDCR

22
114A forms for this information.
23
24
25
26
27

Ruling:
Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ response is evasive. He states that he seeks the names of
employees under Defendant Espinosa’s supervision to establish a pattern of retaliation and deliberate
indifference, and to establish the failure to properly review and investigate his property appeals.

28
3

1

As written, Plaintiff’s interrogatory is overbroad and requests irrelevant information. In his

2

motion, Plaintiff narrows down the information sought to employees under Defendant Espinosa’s

3

supervision on January 22, 2012. The Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion IN PART and require a

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

further response to this narrowed interrogatory.
Defendant’s remaining response is sufficient, as she states that she does not know who
collected Plaintiff’s property or the circumstances surrounding the confiscation. Defendant Espinosa
identified the person she believes may be responsible for Plaintiff’s property confiscation. That
Plaintiff may not have the information cited by Defendant Espinosa does not render this portion of the
response insufficient.
Interrogatory Number 8:
State your knowledge, and all documents you collected, produced, wrote, regarding the
investigation of LVN Delorise Tassey, including all staff members involved in this investigation,
provide names, titles, positions, with corresponding dates produce all relevant documents also.
Response: I know that there was an investigation done regarding LVN Tassey. But I did not
conduct the confidential investigation. The investigation was done by the Investigative Services Unit.

16
Any documents were collected and retained by the Investigative Services Unit.
17
Ruling:
18
As with Interrogatory Number 1, Defendant fails to provide the specific requested information.
19

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a

20
supplemental response providing the additional requested information. Defendant does not need to
21
produce documents in response to an interrogatory.
22
Interrogatory Number 16:
23
24
25
26
27
28

State and describe all the information provided to you from C/O C. Patino, C/O Razo, C/O
R.M. Rodriguez, C/O Encinas, C/O Jason Musselman, C/O Mayo (IGI), C/O’s working the 4B/4A
SHU, or any staff at CSP Corcoran or CSATF at Corcoran, Office of Correctional Safety, regarding
any information which was about or pertaining to the Plaintiff receiving threats his family would be
harmed, please provide all information collected, received, verbally or in writing and any instructions
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

received, including any information from Facility 4B Captain J. Castro or Lieutenant G. Hopkins
which relates to any threats directed towards Plaintiff, David E. Estrada T42165 family, provide
corresponding dates, also.
Response: I know that there was an investigation done. But I did not conduct the confidential
investigation. The investigation was done by the Investigative Services Unit. Any documents were
collected and retained by the Investigative Services Unit.
Ruling:
Again, Defendant has only provided a general response and has failed to provide the specific
requested information, and Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide a
supplemental response providing the additional requested information. Defendant does not need to
produce documents in response to an interrogatory.
Interrogatory Number 20:
Please state if you have ever been accused of misconduct, in any form, if so describe these
misconduct allegations and please produce documents, reports and findings, and the names of those
involved, investigating along with any inmate appeals written, staff complaints or documents

16
reprimanding you.
17
Response: Objection. This request is irrelevant and seeks private and confidential information.
18
The interrogatory also improperly seeks the production of documents. Without waiving these
19
objections, Defendant responds as follows: I do not have any adverse actions or disciplinary actions
20
against me. I do not know how many staff complaints have been filed against me by inmates, but
21
none have resulted in adverse action.
22
Ruling:
23
24
25
26
27

While Defendant states that no adverse or disciplinary actions have been taken against her, the
response is not complete. The interrogatory also asks whether Defendant has been accused of
misconduct in inmate appeals, staff complaints or other documents, though Plaintiff would not be
entitled to each and every complaint against Defendant Espinosa. The claims against Defendant

28
5

1
2
3
4
5

Espinosa are limited to failure to protect and retaliation, and therefore only inmate appeals, etc.,
related to these issues are relevant to this action.
The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion IN PART. Defendant must provide a
supplemental response addressing complaints for failure to protect and retaliation, if any, for the three
years prior to the 2012 incident.

6
7
8
9

ORDER
Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Defendant Espinosa must provide supplemental responses within thirty (30) days of the date of service
of this order.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated:
13

/s/ Dennis

January 21, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6