Hamilton v. Quinonez et al

Filing 24

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Compel Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 06/10/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

EDDIE HAMILTON,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.
J. QUINONEZ, et al.,

12

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-1216-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
(ECF NO. 22)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

13
14

I.

15
16
17
18
19

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 9.) The action
proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants
Quinonez and Lozano. (ECF Nos. 9 & 10.)

20

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s April 24, 2015 motion to compel discovery. (ECF No.

21

22.) Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is

22

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

23
24

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
The discovery process is subject to the overriding limitation of good faith. Asea,

25
26
27
28

Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 1981). Parties may obtain
discovery regarding any non-privileged 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

1

the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information

2

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead

3

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

4
Generally, if the responding party objects to a discovery request, the party moving
5
6

to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the objections are not justified. E.g.,

7

Grabek v. Dickinson, No. CIV S-10-2892 GGH P., 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.

8

13, 2012); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv-05646-AWI-SMS (PC), 2008 WL 860523, at *4

9

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008). This requires the moving party to inform the Court which

10
11

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

12
13
14

objections are not meritorious. Grabek, 2012 WL 113799, at *1; Womack v. Virga, No.
CIV S-11-1030 MCE EFB P., 2011 WL 6703958, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011).

15

The court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs

16

its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). “In each instance, the determination

17

whether . . . information is discoverable because it is relevant to the claims or defenses

18

depends on the circumstances of the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory

19

Committee’s note (2000 Amendment) (Gap Report) (Subdivision (b)(1)).

20
21
22
23

III. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
Plaintiff’s claims, which arose when he was incarcerated at Wasco State Prison,
may be summarized essentially as follows:

24

On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff was assaulted by his cellmate Carlos Richee. On

25

March 8, 2013, prison officials formally documented Plaintiff and Richee as enemies. On

26

April 2, 2013, Plaintiff told Defendants Quinonez and Lozano, both correctional officers,

27
that he and Richee had fought previously and he feared for his safety. Defendants
28
2

1

made no effort to prevent an altercation. Defendant Quinonez had been present when

2

Plaintiff was attacked on February 19 and allegedly informed Lozano of the incident.

3
4

Defendant Lozano told Plaintiff that “if anything happen, do what you have to do and you
won’t get in any trouble.”

5
Plaintiff was assaulted by Richee approximately twenty minutes later. Plaintiff

6
7

suffered injuries to his face and shoulder. Plaintiff asserts the Defendants failed to

8

protect him from a substantial risk of harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

9

IV. DISCUSSION

10
11

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ responses to Interrogatories 1-5, and Request
for Production 11 are deficient and requests that Defendants provide further responses.

12
13
14

Defendants argue that their objections were proper. (ECF No. 23.) The Court addresses
each of the discovery requests in turn.
1. Interrogatory No. 1

15
16

a. Request:
Had inmate Richee AM8781 been disciplined or involved in
any other fight-related disturbances prior to April 2, 2013?
b. Response
Objection: This request is compound, vague as to time, and it
calls for a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects on the
grounds that it is vague and ambiguous because it does not
specify the term [sic] “disciplined” or “involved” or “any other
fight-related disturbances.” Defendant further objects
because it is overbroad as to time, nor [sic] does it specify a
time period other than “prior to April 2, 2013.” Defendant
further objects that this request seeks information not
relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this lawsuit, and
is thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Defendant
further objects because this interrogatory seeks confidential
and private information pertaining to another inmate, the
disclosure of which would create a hazard to the safety and
security of the institution and violates the inmates’ rights to

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Both the interrogatories themselves and the Defendants’ responses to them are identical as to each
Defendant. (ECF No. 22.)

3

1

privacy and confidentially [sic]. Defendant further objects
because this interrogatory seeks information not in the
possession, custody or control of the defendant. Without
waiving any objections, Defendant responds as follows: Not
to my knowledge.

2
3
4

c. Analysis

5

Defendant’s objections are sustained in part and overruled in part. Defendants will

6
be required to answer subject to the limitations described below.
7
The request is not vague, ambiguous, or compound, and does not call for a legal

8
9

conclusion. Giving it a fair and reasonable reading in light of the facts of this case, it

10

simply asks whether the named individual has been disciplined for fighting 2 or been

11

involved in any fight-related incidents to Defendants’ knowledge. The response could

12

have great relevancy to whether Defendants knew Richee was a threat prior to the April

13
14

2, 2013 assault on Plaintiff (ECF No. 9, at 8.) Information revealing prior documented
violent behavior and/or fights with other inmates could support Plaintiff’s claims. See

15
16

Gray v. Virga, No. 2:12-CV-03006 2015 WL 1509082, at *7 (E.D. Cal. April 1,

17

2015)(information from file of perpetrator of assault could support plaintiff’s claim that

18

defendants knew perpetrator to be a danger to others).

19

Defendants’ response that they have no knowledge of prior incidents is suspect given

20

Plaintiff’s allegations that Richee assaulted him in February 2013 and that the two were

21

subsequently designated “enemies.” It is not clear whether Defendants deny this

22
23
24

occurred, deny they have any knowledge of it having occurred, or are being
disingenuous.

Defendants are reminded that they are to answer with regard to

25

knowledge in or subject to their possession, custody, or control. Certainly, records of

26

such events are available to them or their counsel.

27

2

28

Read literally, the request asks whether Richee was disciplined for any reason. Such an interpretation
would leave the request overbroad in asking about discipline wholly unrelated to issues raised in this case.
Accordingly, the Court reads it as calling for “discipline for fighting.”

4

1

Defendants’ objections on the basis of privilege will also be overruled. While Cal.

2

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(b) may prevent Defendants from producing documents from

3

another inmate’s central file absent a court order, it does not prevent Defendants from

4
responding to an interrogatory on the same issues. See Cordoba v. Dickinson, No. CIV
5
6

S-10-2944 2012 WL 868926, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012)(plaintiff “could and should

7

have sought” information about Defendants’ conduct from the central file of his inmate-

8

enemy “through interrogatories, requests for admissions, or other available discovery

9

devices”); Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08-cv-1113 2011 WL 1087090, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar.

10
11

24, 2011)(Plaintiff did not have a right to confidential debriefing reports, but was entitled
to limited disclosure of the information in the reports).

12
13
14

However, the request is overbroad as to time. An incident long years before the
event in issue in this case would be of little, if any, relevance here. Events within the

15

three years preceding April 2013 could potentially be relevant. The Court will order

16

Defendants to answer with regard to that time period.

17
18
19

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to the first interrogatory,
and Defendants shall provide further responses relating to the three year period prior to
April 2013.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2. Interrogatory No. 2
a. Request
Has any inmate other than Plaintiff ever accused you of
failing to protect an Inmate since the beginning of your
employment by the CDCR?
b. Response
Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous as to the
terms “failing to protect” and calls for a legal conclusion.
Defendant further objects that this interrogatory is overbroad
as to time. Defendant further objects that this request seeks
information not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in
this lawsuit, and thus is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P.. 26(b).
5

1
2

Without waiving objections, Defendant responds as follows:
Not to my knowledge.
c. Analysis

3
4
5
6

Defendant’s objections are sustained in part and overruled in part, and
Defendants will be required to answer subject to the limitations described below.
The request is not vague or ambiguous and does not call for a legal conclusion.

7

Giving it a fair and reasonable reading in light of the facts of this case, it simply asks

8

whether other inmates previously filed grievances alleging that Defendants failed to

9

protect them from assaults. Previous complaints against Defendants are relevant insofar

10
as they could help establish possible a pattern or practice of failing to protect inmates
11
12

from one another. See Taylor v. O'Hanneson, No. 1:11-CV-00538 2014 WL 2696585, at

13

*4-5 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014)(citing Ramirez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407,

14

412 (C.D.Cal.2005)); see also Wheeler v. Alison, No. 1:12-cv-00861 2015 WL 269148,

15

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2015)(discussing scope of plaintiff’s ability to discover

16

Defendant’s past behavior). While admissibility of character evidence is a trial objection,

17

discovery is much broader. Even at trial, evidence inadmissible to prove character may

18
19
20
21

be admissible for other purposes, as Plaintiff observes in his motion to compel (ECF No.
22, at 2). See also Taylor, 2014 WL 2696585, at *4.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff's request is overbroad as to time; thus, the Court

22

will order Defendants to provide further responses regarding grievances alleging

23

Defendants failed to protect within the three years preceding April 2013. See Wheeler,

24
25

2015 WL 269148, at *2.
In their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendants assert that inmate

26
27
28

grievances are not categorized by the staff members named in the grievance, so
Defendants have no reasonable way to search for the information “other than to look
6

1

through every inmate appeal ever submitted during each individual Defendants’ [sic]

2

tenure at a particular institution.” (ECF No. 23, at 9.) However, inmate appeals are

3
4

apparently categorized by both “the institution where the grieved issue took place and
the inmate’s appeal issue.” Id. Therefore, Defendants may search for inmate appeal

5
6
7

issues categorized as, e.g., “inmate assault” or “failure to protect” claims.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 2 is

8

GRANTED; Defendants must provide further responses regarding grievances, filed

9

within the three years preceding April 2013, alleging that they failed to protect an inmate

10
11

from harm.
3. Interrogatory No. 3

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

a. Request
Has anyone ever initiated a Staff Complaint against you since
the beginning of your employment by the CDCR?
b. Response
Objection. This request is overbroad as to scope and time.
Defendant further objects that this request seeks information
not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this lawsuit,
and is thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The request
also calls for confidential information protected by privacy
rights of staff and inmates guaranteed by the United States
and California Constitutions, applicable statutes such as
Government Code section 6254; and calls for confidential
information that would unduly expose the institution, staff
and/or other inmates to a substantial risk of harm under
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3321.
Additionally, the production of confidential information is
improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have
access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).
Without waiving objections, Defendant responds as follows:
Not to my knowledge.
c. Analysis and Ruling:

26
27
28

Defendants’ objection based on relevance is overruled. As with grievances alleging
Defendants’ failure to protect them, previous staff complaints could show bias, a pattern
7

1

or practice of unprofessional behavior, or Defendants’ knowledge of complaints against

2

them. See Taylor, 2014 WL 2696585, at *4 (citing Ramirez, 231 F.R.D. at 412); Wheeler,

3
4

2015 WL 269148, at *2. In addition, Defendants suggest in their opposition to the
motion to compel that such a complaint may have been made in response to Plaintiff’s

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

allegations against them, indicating that some responsive information is contained within
their files. (ECF No. 23, at 8.)
The Court agrees, however, that the request is overbroad as to scope and time.
Thus, the Court will order Defendants to provide further responses regarding staff
complaints made within the last three years regarding inmate assaults and failures to
protect.

12
13
14

As to Defendants' objection on privacy grounds, although the Court may take into
account the privacy interests potentially implicated in the disclosure of documents and

15

information, “privacy concerns are not absolute; they must be weighed against other

16

competing interests.” Ramirez, 231 F.R.D. at 411 (C.D.Cal. 2005). Ramirez recognized

17

in the context of excessive force complaints against police officers:

18

23

“Most information requested by civil rights plaintiffs in these lawsuits deals
with professional personnel records, such as prior involvement in
disciplinary proceedings or citizen complaints filed against the officers. The
privacy interest in this kind of professional record is not substantial,
because it is not the kind of ‘highly personal’ information warranting
constitutional safeguard. The privacy interest in nondisclosure of
professional records should be especially limited in view of the role played
by the police officer as a public servant who must be accountable to public
review.”

24

Id. These concerns are equally applicable to allegations that a correctional officer

25

failed to protect an inmate from a known risk of assault. See Taylor, 2014 WL 2696585,

26

at *5. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 3 is

19
20
21
22

27

GRANTED; Defendants must provide further responses regarding staff complaints, filed

28
8

1

within the three years preceding April 2013, alleging that they failed to protect an inmate

2

from harm.

3

4. Interrogatory No. 4

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

a. Request
Has any inmate ever initiated a Staff Complaint against you
since the beginning of your employment by the CDCR?
b. Response
Objection. This request is overbroad as to scope and time.
Defendant further objects that this request seeks information
not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this lawsuit,
and is thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The request
also calls for confidential information protected by privacy
rights of staff and inmates guaranteed by the United States
and California Constitutions, applicable statutes such as
Government Code section 6254; and calls for confidential
information that would unduly expose the institution, staff
and/or other inmates to a substantial risk of harm under
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3321.
Additionally, the production of confidential information is
improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have
access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).
Without waiving objections, Defendant responds as follows:
Not to my knowledge.
c. Analysis and Ruling

18
19
20

Defendants’ objections to Interrogatory No. 4 are the same as their objections to
Interrogatory No. 3. The Court adopts its ruling on Interrogatory No. 3 above to sustain in

21

part and overrule in part Defendants’ objections and order Defendants to respond in

22

accord with the directions and limitations set forth in regard to Request No. 3 above,

23

except here the response will be limited to those complaints initiated by inmates.

24
25
26
27
28

5. Interrogatory No. 5
a. Request
Identify any and all Complaints or grievances filed by any
inmate against you pertaining to your Failing to Protect
conduct.
b. Response
9

1

Objection. This request is overbroad as to scope and time.
Defendant further objects that this request seeks information
not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this lawsuit,
and is thus not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The request
also calls for confidential information protected by privacy
rights of staff and inmates guaranteed by the United States
and California Constitutions, applicable statutes such as
Government Code section 6254; and calls for confidential
information that would unduly expose the institution, staff
and/or other inmates to a substantial risk of harm under
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3321.
Additionally, the production of confidential information is
improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have
access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d).
Without waiving objections, Defendant responds as follows:
Not to my knowledge.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

c. Analysis and Ruling

13

Defendants’ objections to Interrogatory No. 5 are overruled for the same reason as

14

their objections to Interrogatory No. 2 were overruled. Defendants shall respond with

15

regard to such complaints or grievance’s filed within the three years preceding April

16

2013. It appears Plaintiff did not specify “identify” or define what he meant by the word.

17

However, a good faith, reasonable interpretation would call for a response which

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

specified the date of, parties to, nature of, and outcome of any such complaint or
grievance.
6. Request for Production No. 1
a. Request
Produce the CDC Form 154 (Bed Move) dated April 2, 2013
of Inmate Richee AM8781 with the information, who
authorized the bed move and who approved the bed move.
b. Response
Objection. This request seeks information of a non-party
inmate that is deemed confidential under California Code of
Regulations, Title 15, section 3321, the disclosure of which
could: (1) endanger the safety of other inmates and staff of
the CDCR, or (2) jeopardize the security of the institution.
Additionally, the production of confidential information is
10

1

improper on the grounds that an inmate shall not have
access to information designated confidential. Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15, § 3370(d). Defendant further objects to this
request on the ground that it seeks information Plaintiff
cannot possess under section 3450(d) of Title 15 of the
California Code of Regulation. Defendant further objects to
this request on the ground that disclosure of this information
is unauthorized and would jeopardize institutional security
under sections 3275 and 3276 of Title 15 of the California
Code of Regulations.

2
3
4
5
6
7

c. Analysis and Ruling

8
9

Defendants cite Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3370 to argue that production of these
documents is prohibited. However, while this regulation “may prevent defendants from

10
producing the documents without a court order, they do not prevent this court from
11
12

issuing an order requiring their production.” Gray, 2015 WL 1509082, at *7 (ordering

13

release of redacted rule violation reports pertaining to violent behavior by Plaintiff’s

14

attacker).

15
16
17

Defendants also argue, without elaboration, that the bed move form contains
confidential information, and thus that disclosure would be prohibited under Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15 § 3450(d). Without more information about any possible security threat

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

disclosure might to pose, the Court will overrule Defendants’ objections and order
disclosure of the Bed Move form.
V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART;
2. Defendants shall provide further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1

26
27
28

through 5 and Request for Production No. 1 within thirty (30) days of
service of this Order; and
11

1

3. Plaintiff may, but need not, file a further motion to compel within fourteen
(14) days of service of Defendant’s further response.

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 10, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12