McCoy v. Ramirez et al

Filing 94

ORDER GRANTING IN PART Defendant's Motion for Protective Order 89 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/15/2017: Plaintiff shall not be permitted to conduct a site inspection or take photographs of Facility 4B at CCI. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

LAKEITH LEROY MCCOY,

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01808-MJS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

J. RAMIREZ, et al.,
(ECF No. 89)
Defendants.

18
19
20

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

21

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds against Defendant

22

Jason Ramirez on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. Both parties have

23

consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

24

Pending now is Defendant‟s December 19, 2016, motion for protective order.

25

(ECF No. 89.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, and the time for filing one has now

26

passed. See E.D. Local Rule 230(l).

27
28
1

1
2
3
4
5

Defendant‟s motion concerns two matters: (1) Plaintiff‟s October 24, 2016,
“Application for Civil Subpoena” to conduct an audiovisual deposition of Defendant and
other witnesses (ECF No. 82), and (2) Plaintiff‟s October 24, 2016, “First Demand for
Inspection and Photographing.”
I.

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

Plaintiff’s Application for Civil Subpoena
On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed an “Application for Civil Subpoena” to depose

Defendant and non-party witnesses. (ECF No. 82.) This application was denied on
December 19, 2016, and Plaintiff was informed of the requirements for deposing parties
and non-parties, including the payment of all costs and fees associated with the
depositions. (ECF No. 91.) Insofar as Defendant‟s present motion for protective order is
based in part on this Application, it will be denied as moot since the Application has
already been denied.
II.

Plaintiff’s Demand for Inspection and Photography
Also on October 24, 2016, Plaintiff served on Defendant a request to conduct a

site inspection and take photographs of Facility 4B at the California Correctional
Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California. On November 28, 2016, Defendant served an
objection. On December 16, 2016, Defendant filed the instant motion for protective order
on the grounds that Plaintiff‟s request would cause an undue burden and expense, is
irrelevant, and carries a security risk.
A.

Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets forth the following standard
pertaining to the scope of discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

28
2

1

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

2

A party may move for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

3
4
5
6

Procedure 26(c), and a Court may grant such a motion on a showing of good cause, on
the grounds that a discovery request would cause annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.
“District courts have „broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the

7
8
9
10

course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.‟” Hunt v. County of Orange,
672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633
F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).
B.

11

Defendant contends that Plaintiff‟s request to inspect and photograph Facility 4B

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

at CCI would cause an undue burden and expense on the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation because Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Kern Valley
State Prison in Delano, CA (ECF No. 92), would have to be transferred to CCI and then
employ extra staff to escort him during the inspection, provide the camera and other
necessary equipment, and take the photographs. Defendant also claims that inspection
and photographs of the institution are irrelevant since the layout and physical features of
the facility have no bearing on Plaintiff‟s ability to prove his claim that Defendant Ramirez
used excessive force in pushing Plaintiff into a door on an escort from the CCI law library
to Plaintiff‟s cell.
The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause for the issuance of

22
23
24
25
26
27

Analysis

a protective order with regard to Plaintiff‟s request to inspect and photograph Facility 4B
at CCI. In the absence of any objections from Plaintiff, the motion will be granted.
III.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant‟s December

16, 2016, motion for protective order (ECF No. 89) is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall

28
3

1

not be permitted to conduct a site inspection or take photographs of Facility 4B at CCI.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated:

January 15, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4