Gregory E. Shehee (Civil Detainee) v. Trumbly et al
Filing
119
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motions to Compel 115 , 116 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/28/2018. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
REDDING, et al.,
15
16
17
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:14-cv-00706-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO COMPEL
[ECF Nos. 115, 116]
At the time this action was filed, Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee was a civil detainee proceeding
18
pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California
19
Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the
20
meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).
21
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel, filed on January 23, 2018,
22
respectively. (ECF Nos. 115, 116.) Defendants filed an opposition to both of Plaintiff’s motions on
23
February 13, 2018, respectively. (ECF Nos. 117, 118.)
24
I.
25
DISCUSSION
26
Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving to compel
27
bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV
28
S-10-2892 GGH P, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012); Womack, 2011 WL 6703958, at
1
1
*3; Mitchell v. Felker, No. CV 08-119RAJ, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2010); Ellis
2
v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).
3
This requires the moving party to inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the
4
motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why
5
the responding party=s objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack,
6
2011 WL 6703958, at *3; Mitchell, 2010 WL 3835765, at *2; Ellis, 2008 WL 860523, at *4.
7
However, the Court is vested with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these
8
procedures, Plaintiff is entitled to leniency as a pro se litigant; therefore, to the extent possible, the
9
Court endeavors to resolve his motion to compel on its merits. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d
10
606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir.
11
2005); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel (ECF No. 115)
12
A.
13
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff generally argues that Defendants did not adequately respond
14
to all of his requests for production of documents. However, Plaintiff fails to specifically discuss the
15
responses and why they are inadequate.
16
Defendants submit that Plaintiff served a document entitled “Plaintiff One Notice Some
17
Medical Records Mailed by 1:14-cv-005.LJO Defendant’s Ahlin, et al. Also Case Number Above.
18
Second Request for Production of All Documents (IES).” Because it was not clear who the discovery
19
was propounded to and because it was labeled as a second request for which only Defendants Redding
20
and Blanco had been previously served, responses were provided by only Defendants Redding and
21
Blanco.
22
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force against Defendants J. Redding,
23
J. Blanco, K. Peugh, J. Gonzalez, M. Clark, R. Davis, B. T. Bales, Pamela Ahlin, Audrey King, and
24
Jack Carter with respect to an incident on January 31, 2011. Plaintiff propounded twenty-five requests
25
for production of documents. The Court agrees with Defendants that most of Plaintiff’s requests were
26
indiscernible, sought irrelevant material, sought records for various dates but did not include the date
27
of incident in this case, and sought records from various medical professional. Defense counsel
28
submits that neither Defendant Redding nor Blanco is or was a medical care provider. In fact, none of
2
1
the Defendants named in this case is or was a medical care provider. (ECF No. 117, Opp’n at 2.)
2
Nonetheless, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s requests on December 19, 2017. (ECF No. 115 at
3
pp. 33-43.)
4
Plaintiff’s present motion to compel is difficult to decipher and fails to set forth a sufficient
5
factual or legal basis to warrant an order compelling production of the requested documents. Plaintiff
6
merely opposes Defendants’ objections as “boilerplate.” However, a review of Plaintiff’s requests and
7
Defendants’ responses demonstrate that Plaintiff did not seek relevant documentation as related to the
8
alleged use of excessive force on January 31, 2011. Further, because Defendants are not medical care
9
providers, they do not have possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff’s medical file. In any event, on
10
November 6, 2017, the office of the Attorney General in the case of Shehee v. Nguyen, et al., Case
11
No. 1:14-cv01154-LJO-MJS, delivered to Plaintiff at the Fresno County Jail, a complete copy his
12
medical records. (ECF No. 68.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to his
13
request for production of documents (set two) is denied.
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 116)
14
B.
15
As with Plaintiff’s first motion to compel, Plaintiff generally argues that Defendants did not
16
adequately respond to all of his requests for production of documents. However, Plaintiff fails to
17
specifically discuss the responses and why they are inadequate.
18
On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff served by mail, “Plaintiff’s Request Production of Document
19
and Things See Fed. R. Civ.P. 24(a)(1) Document’s.” (Whitney Decl. at ¶ 2 & Ex. A.) Defendants
20
served responses on November 22, 2017. (ECF No. 116 at pp. 18-24, Ex. G.)
21
As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion is confusing and difficult to decipher. Plaintiff
22
references certain portions of the responses as boilerplate. However, Plaintiff’s references to various
23
lines on various pages do not coincide with any response. For instance, on page 2 of Plaintiff’s
24
motion, Plaintiff references to a “boilerplate response” on page 1, lines 14-26. (ECF No. 116 at p. 2.)
25
However, page 1 of Defendants’ response at lines 14-26, include portions of the case caption,
26
identification of the propounding party, responding party, set number, and an introduction to the
27
responses. (ECF No. 116 at p. 18.)
28
3
It appears that Plaintiff objects to Defendants responses in which they indicate that a complete
1
2
set of Plaintiff’s medical records were delivered to him at the Fresno County Jail on November 6,
3
2017. (ECF No. 116 at p. 7.) Plaintiff’s objection lacks merits because Plaintiff requested various
4
medical treatment records and a complete copy of his medical file; however, as previously stated, he
5
was already in possession of a complete copy of his medical file. Thus, there is no basis to compel a
6
further response.
Plaintiff also objects to Defendant King’s response to his requests regarding documents related
7
8
to her being a “Chairman” of a “People’s Committee.” However, Defendant King responded that she
9
is not a chairman and has no knowledge of the People’s Committee, and therefore no documents can
10
be produced.
With regard to Request No. 7, Plaintiff sought copies of his patient rights complaint. (ECF No.
11
12
116 at p. 14.) Defendants provided the documents as Bates Numbers PR0001-PR0025. (Id. at p. 23.)
13
The fact that Plaintiff simply believes additional documents are available does not justify compelling a
14
further response.
15
Lastly, with regard to Request No. 8, Plaintiff requested the following: “To Defendants Audrey
16
King, et al. The Deputy Attorney General Earli Eisenberg sent discovery to Sheriff’s Lt. Mendez, who
17
read copied my medical records 3/6/17, and on 3/7/2017 over 397,000 relevant material evidence was
18
stolen less or destruction that cannot be replaced. All documents mental health, medical records of
19
mine is to be addressed to me Gregory Ell Shehee. The interference with the case caused actual
20
injuries to all 6 or 7 of my cases.” (ECF No. 116 at p. 23.) Defendants objected on the grounds that
21
the request related to another matter, it was vague, ambiguous, and assumed facts since Defendants,
22
who are not the Sheriff, have no information pertinent to the allegation in the request. Without
23
waiving the objections, Defendants again pointed out that a complete set of medical records was
24
already delivered to Plaintiff. Defendants’ objections have merit and Plaintiff has failed to meet his
25
burden in demonstrating otherwise.
26
///
27
///
28
///
4
1
II.
2
ORDER
3
Simply stated, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in demonstrating why he believes
4
Defendants’ responses are deficient, why the objections are not justified, or that the information he
5
seeks is relevant to the claims or defense in this action. It is not the duty of the Court to review
6
Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests to justify his motion to compel. Accordingly,
7
Plaintiff’s motions to compel filed on January 23, 2018 (ECF Nos. 115, 116), are denied.
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 28, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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
6
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?