Jacobsen v. People of the State of California

Filing 108

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 105 Discovery Motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/7/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL NEIL JACOBSEN,

12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00108-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
DISCOVERY MOTION

v.
(Doc. 105)

14

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17

In this action, Plaintiff is proceeding on claims of: (1) excessive force and deliberate

18

indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment, violation of

19

Plaintiff's right of access to the courts, and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against

20

Sergeant Diaz; (2) excessive force in violation of the Eight Amendment and retaliation in

21

violation of the First Amendment against Officer Barahas; and (3) deliberate indifference to his

22

serious medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment against Nurse Monica. (Doc. 17.)

23

In this motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce the video taken of the

24

incident and if it does not exist, to provide an explanation of why it was not preserved. Also, in

25

this event, he seeks an order requiring the defendants to provide an expert from the jail with

26

knowledge of the policies surrounding the preservation of video evidence and schematics of

27

where the cameras are located and when the cameras in the hallway were placed. (Doc. 105, pp.

28

1-5.) However, the Court has addressed this issue several times already. (See Doc. 67, pp. 5-6,
1

1

Doc. 104, pp. 2-3.)
The latest of this Court’s prior discovery orders prohibited Plaintiff from filing further

2
3

motions to compel production of the video footage. (Doc. 104, 3:14-18.) That order did,

4

however, allow Plaintiff to propound an interrogatory seeking the name of the Fresno County Jail

5

employee with knowledge of the surveillance system if he had not already exhausted his 25

6

interrogatories allowed in the action. (Id.)
Plaintiff contends that he propounded an interrogatory requesting Defendants “to provide

7
8

a Fresno County Jail employee with knowledge of the video surveilance (sic) system and the

9

policies which govern the investigations within the jail and preservation of any video which

10

captures evidence or incidents.” (Doc. 105, p. 2.) However, Plaintiff attached Defendants’

11

response to an interrogatory wherein Plaintiff asked1: “If the video surveilance (sic) is not

12

available I would like an explanation of why or what happened to it.” (Doc. 105, p. 15.) In

13

response, Defendants provided a detailed explanation culminating with the statement:

14

“Therefore, video footage never existed of the two alleged incidences (sic) that occurred on

15

December 25, 2013 and March 11, 2014.” (Id., pp. 15-16.) The verification for the accuracy of

16

the response provided was signed by “Juan M. Gonzales” who is noted as being employed as a

17

correctional officer by the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department. (Id., p. 17.) This effectively

18

identified the person with knowledge of the video surveillance at the relevant time.

19

It is Plaintiff's burden in his motion to compel to demonstrate why a response is

20

insufficient or an objection is not justified. See Glass v. Beer, No. 1:04-cv-05466-OWW-SMS,

21

2007 WL 913876, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2007). Plaintiff fails to meet this burden as he fails to

22

show that he propounded discovery requesting the information he seeks in this motion. This has

23

been a defect of Plaintiff’s prior discovery motions as well. (See Docs. 53, 67, 104.)
Plaintiff’s motion for production of the video is DENIED and, to the extent that his

24
25

motion seeks an explanation of why it was not preserved and to compel they provide an expert

26

within the jail with knowledge of the policies surrounding the preservation of video evidence it is

27
28

1

Plaintiff did not submit any interrogatory he propounded seeking the identity of such person.

2

1

DENIED since Defendants’ response which he attached as Exhibit 2 provided this information

2

and iterated that the video never existed. To the extent Plaintiff desires production of the name of

3

someone knowledgeable of the schematics of where the cameras are located and how long the

4

cameras in the hallway were placed, the request is DENIED based on Plaintiff’s failure to show

5

that he propounded a discovery request seeking this information. Moreover, Plaintiff does not

6

explain how discovery on the coverage of any video surveillance at the jail would assist him in

7

proving any element of his case.

8
9

Further, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion seeks to compel Defendants to produce
information regarding the dates which his medical eye-patch was put on and taken off of the

10

“alert system” and by whom, (Doc. 105, pp. 5-7), it is DISREGARDED as rendered moot by

11

Defendants’ supplemental response which they attached to their opposition (Doc. 107, pp. 10-14).

12
13

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on January 12,
2017, is DENIED.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 7, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3